Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

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

The first item is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Gareth Bennett. 

Llywydd, throughout this unprecedented crisis the Welsh Government has acted to save lives and livelihoods. We continue to monitor and review the actions we take to keep Wales safe in line with the latest clinical and scientific advice.

Thanks for that response. We have had a lower vaccination rate than the other parts of the UK so far. The rate in England is about 3.5 per cent of the population, while in Wales it has been 2.7 per cent. Although you have tried to play down this difference, it does amount to an extra 25,000 people who could have been vaccinated in Wales if you and your health Minister had been on the ball. Given that your health Minister has not even set foot in an NHS hospital in recent months because he is worried that he will be getting in the way, does he now need to resign so that he isn't getting in the way of vaccinating more people, and do we now need to adopt a UK-led approach to vaccinations?

No. 

First Minister, the vaccination programme is a huge programme for the Government and the people of Wales to embark on, and it's important people maintain confidence in its delivery in every part of Wales. What consideration have you given to creating a position within the Government of a vaccination Minister to help drive this logistical exercise across Wales, to iron out any of the difficulties that might occur? Because we do know that the NHS as a whole is under enormous pressure, and the current health Minister has to spend a considerable amount of time dealing with those issues, rightly so, because, obviously, elective surgery has been postponed in many areas and those pressures will be unrelenting in the coming weeks. So, have you given any consideration to drawing on some of the talent on your back benches, such as Carwyn Jones or Alun Davies, who could fulfil such a position of a vaccination Minister?

Llywydd, I thank the Member for his recognition of the scale of the effort that is needed and is being made to roll out the vaccination programme on the size and scale that is necessary here in Wales, and for his recognition of the enormous pressure that the health service is currently operating under while it rolls out the vaccination programme.

My view is that vaccination is intimately connected with everything else that the health service seeks to do—that you cannot make decisions in one part of the NHS's responsibility severed off from everything else. Much better, I believe, to allow the health Minister, who is intimately acquainted with everything that has happened in the last 10 months with the coronavirus effort of the health service, including vaccination, to be in charge of that effort. I think that works better than trying to hand over just part of what the NHS has to do to one other person, inevitably creating new barriers and borderlines, and so on. Our health Minister has worked absolutely tirelessly over the last 10 months. He is in the best position to make sure that everything we need to do in vaccination is taken forward in line with the plan that was published yesterday. 

I'm glad the First Minister gave such short shrift to the questioner on this matter. This was, of course, somebody who wanted to invite Donald Trump to open his ill-fated office in Pontypridd, and also has got everything wrong at every point over the last nine months.

What is important now in terms of reviewing how we go forward is to ensure that we continue to support people through this pandemic. The First Minister will be aware that the Conservatives are promoting the idea that there's £1 billion sitting either underneath his sofa or in his back pocket somewhere. Will the First Minister confirm that the Welsh Government is using all its funds, all its resources to support the people of Wales and businesses across the whole country as we move forward through this terrible pandemic?

Well, Llywydd, thanks to Alun Davies for both of those questions. In fact, a constituent sent me the quotes from the person who asked the question in which he invited the President of the United States to open his office in Pontypridd, an office as you remember that never did open, many thousands of pounds of public money having been wasted in the process. The same constituent also reminded me that Mr Bennett had placed an amendment in front of the Senedd in December saying that he believed that the new level of restrictions that were being introduced in Wales were disproportionate. Well, he'll have seen now that the rest of the United Kingdom has followed suit. It was not disproportionate; it was simply necessary. He was wrong on that, as he's wrong on what he has asked me today.

And on this complete canard about £1 billion just sitting in the Welsh Government, Llywydd, in November, we were two thirds of the way through the financial year and we had spent two thirds of our budget. At the end of December, we were three quarters of the way through the financial year, and we'd spent three quarters of our budget. We've spent 80 per cent of the budget now in January. Can you imagine anything more irresponsible than urging the Welsh Government to be entirely spent out of our budget with a quarter of the financial year still to go, and a very demanding and challenging quarter as well? I thought the points that were made by Conservative MPs were not simply misguided, Llywydd, they were foolish and they were designed to misinform, and I'm very glad to have had the opportunity to put that record straight this afternoon.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Plans to use the research, development and manufacturing strength of the sector in Wales have already secured two sites at the top of the UK shortlist for bigger factory production of electric vehicle batteries, and four different research and commercialisation projects, as part of the £380 million Faraday battery challenge.

Thank you very much for that information—that's very encouraging. This may seem a slightly odd question in the middle of this pandemic, but we do know that we have to stay focused on a green recovery, and to meet our climate and air pollution targets as well. We know that all new vehicles sold in the UK will need to be powered by renewable technology by 2030, and therefore existing vehicle production facilities using fossil fuels are a depleting asset, unless they are converting to electric or hydrogen. And I'm very pleased to hear from Hitachi that they are trialling the use of batteries on trains to run on main lines that the UK Government has failed to electrify. And that obviously includes the main line that runs west from Cardiff Central, so this could be highly relevant to avoiding the belching diesel fumes on trains heading west in the future. But trains are a niche product compared to cars, and I just wondered what can be done to really work with existing UK vehicle manufacturers to see that Wales has a unique offer in terms of our engineering and compound semiconductor expertise in which to site electric vehicle battery production at scale.

Llywydd, I thank Jenny Rathbone for that very important question. She's absolutely right to point out that, while coronavirus preoccupies us as an immediate public health crisis, the crisis of climate change has not gone away and needs to still be at the forefront of our thoughts. The Member will be pleased to know that, in the automotive transformation fund, which I didn't refer to in my original answer, Wales has succeeded in getting three projects funded in the first round of that fund. All three of them are in that south-east corner of Wales—in Newport and in Caldicot—where we have that cluster of expertise in semiconductors. And I think that is a recognition of the fact that we have that source of expertise that has developed here in Wales and which will be of advantage to the whole of the UK. And, indeed, there are UK manufacturers who are already contributing to the effort that Jenny Rathbone mentioned—Hydro Aluminium, for example, a company that is preparing components for the all-electric London taxi fleet. And that's just one example; there are other firms in Wales already supplying components in this very important area.

And as for trains, I was very grateful to have the chance to meet just before Christmas the senior vice-president of Hitachi, who was visiting the United Kingdom, and to explore with him the interest that Hitachi has in the work that we are doing here in Wales in the railway sector, planning for the future, making sure that we play our part in the great effort that will be needed, as Jenny Rathbone said, Llywydd, to make sure that our transport and our public transport in the future meets the challenge that climate change poses to us all. 

First Minister, you will be aware, I hope, that Britishvolt signed a memorandum of understanding with you and your Government in a bid to build the UK's first large-scale electric vehicle battery factory here in Wales. Now, despite the Vale of Glamorgan site being the initial favourite and the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales informing us in October that he was in regular calls with Britishvolt, our nation has lost out in the race to be a global hub for the electrified vehicle industry. Britishvolt will be, sadly, taking it's £2.6 billion investment, 3,000 highly skilled jobs and up to 5,000 more in the wider supply chain to Northumberland. Why did you, as the First Minister, allow this battery to run flat on Britishvolt in Wales? And why did you not offer any financial incentives whatsoever to supercharge such an important industry and development for Wales? Diolch. 

Llywydd, I'm afraid the Member read out her question but was not very well informed about it. We continue to be in discussions with Britishvolt. The move to Blyth is their first factory. As I said in my answer to Jenny Rathbone, Wales has two sites—the Bro Tathan site and the Baglan site—in the top five of the United Kingdom Government's shortlist for gigafactory production of electric batteries. We continue to be in discussion with Britishvolt. They have ambitions beyond Blyth, and Wales is very much on their list for the next phase of their development. I am very keen that we continue to pursue those possibilities and certainly not to run down the efforts that the company made with the Welsh Government to bring jobs and activity to Wales. 

Questions now from the party leaders. The Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, Mohamud Hassan was a fit and healthy 24-year-old. On Friday evening he was arrested at a property in Cardiff, where neighbours reportedly spoke of a significant commotion. Having been taken into custody at Cardiff Bay police station, Mr Hassan was released without charge on Saturday. Later that evening, he tragically died. Witnesses were reportedly shocked by Mr Hassan's condition following his release, saying that his tracksuit was covered in blood and he had severe injuries and bruising. There can be no doubt that this is a deeply harrowing case and every effort should be made to seek the truth of what happened. Why was Mohamud Hassan arrested? What happened during his arrest? Did he have legal representation? Was there any aftercare? Why did this young man die? Whilst we should not prejudge the outcome of any inquiry, will you commit, First Minister, to doing everything within your power to help the family find those answers? And do you support their call for an independent investigation of this case? 

Well, Llywydd, I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for that question. I've read the reports to which he referred. They are deeply concerning, of course, and our thoughts must be with the family of the young man, who was, as Adam Price said, a fit and healthy individual, whose death in the circumstances that the leader of Plaid Cymru described must be properly investigated. Now, I understand that the police have already referred, as they would have to, this matter to the independent police investigation service. The first step in any inquiry will have to be to allow them to carry out their work. I absolutely expect that to be done rigorously and with full and visible independence. I am glad that the family have secured legal assistance to them in order to pursue their very understandable concerns. And if there are things the Welsh Government can do, then I will make sure that we attend properly to those without, as the Member said, prejudging in any way the outcome of the independent investigations that now need to follow.

In 1990, following the most high-profile murder case in the history of South Wales Police, three black men were wrongly convicted of the murder of Lynette White, and, 11 years later, 12 police officers were acquitted on a technicality in the largest police corruption case in history. In the case known as the Butetown Three, five police officers were disciplined 11 years ago following an incident in Cardiff when two black students who had been attacked by skinheads were themselves arrested and charged with violent disorder. In 2019, the death of 13-year-old Christopher Kapessa, who drowned in the River Cynon, was described as an accident within 24 hours by South Wales Police. Only after a persistent campaign did the Crown Prosecution Service admit there was sufficient evidence for a manslaughter prosecution. Christopher's mother Alina described the force as 'institutionally racist'. Given the history and their daily experience, do you understand, First Minister, why so many people of colour would have some sympathy with that statement?

Well, Llywydd, let me say for the record, as I know the Member himself would, black lives matter in absolutely every aspect of public services and public life here in Wales, and that obligation lies with our police services as much as with any other part of Welsh life. I have been, though—to make the record a fair one, I have myself attended with senior members of the South Wales Police at mosques and other gatherings of black communities here in Wales at points when those communities felt very badly under threat, because, for example, of the Christchurch attacks in New Zealand 18 months or so ago. That night, South Wales Police mobilised across the whole of their area, making sure that mosque communities felt protected, that they knew there was a visible presence of the South Wales Police there, and I attended myself with the chief constable at a number of meetings with leaders of those communities, making sure that they knew that their police service was there to look after and to protect them.

So, I think that we have to look at the record in the round. Where disturbing matters happen—and I was a member of the South Wales Police Authority during those awful years around 1990, when there was a failure to grasp the significance of what had gone on and the depths to which cover-ups had been engaged in, but I think, while we take those things seriously, and absolutely must do, there is a wider record and a great deal of commitment from very senior people in our police services here in all parts of Wales to make sure that the right things are done, and we need to support them in that even while we make sure that those individual examples, of the sort that the leader of Plaid Cymru began his questions with today, get the proper, independent and open attention that they need to reassure those people who are most directly touched by them.

First Minister, you're right, obviously, to point to those positive steps that should be supported and encouraged, but would you accept that more can and needs to be done? I'll give you one example—just 2.6 per cent of South Wales Police officers are black, Asian and minority ethnic, compared to 6.7 per cent of the population within the force area. Statistics produced by the Wales Governance Centre show that our prison population here in Wales is even more racially disproportional than that in the United States. You're five and a half times more likely to go to prison if you're black than if you're white in the US; in Wales, the figure is six and a half. In June last year, when we were discussing the case of George Floyd and the repercussions of that, I asked you to commit to setting up a wide-ranging inquiry into the roots and remedies of structural racism and racial disadvantage here in Wales. You said then you would consider that proposal. Have you made a decision?

Well, Llywydd, I definitely agree that more could and should be done. Lots of that will be represented in the race equality action plan, which the Welsh Government will publish in just a few weeks' time. That race equality action plan has been informed by the report into the structural causes of racism here in Wales, which has already been commissioned and has already reported. So, that report was chaired and produced by Professor Emmanuel Ogbonna, a distinguished academic and member of the black community here in Wales. It makes for sobering reading, as the Member I'm sure would agree, and there's no place where it is more shocking than in the figures to which Adam Price has referred this afternoon in the criminal justice system. The level of discrimination faced by black people in the wider criminal justice system absolutely has to be grasped and remedied. It's one of the reasons why taking forward the proposals of the Thomas commission is so important, because it would give us opportunities we don't have now to be able directly to deal with some of the points that the Member has quite rightly raised this afternoon. 

On his final question about a report into structural racism here in Wales, that report has been commissioned and that report is available, and it has formed the basis of the race equality action plan. I'm very grateful indeed to Professor Ogbonna for his continued engagement in the production of that plan, which will use all the levers available to us here through our devolved powers to address the pernicious impacts to which the leader of Plaid Cymru has referred in his questions this afternoon. 

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the Welsh Government's vaccine strategy has confirmed that 280,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine and 47,000 of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have now been received here in Wales, and yet we know that only around 91,000 doses have been administered. And we know, as of yesterday, 2.7 per cent of the population of Wales has been vaccinated, compared to 3 per cent in Scotland and 3.5 per cent in England. Can you explain to the people of Wales why the roll-out of the vaccine has fallen behind other UK nations to date, and can you tell us why you believe this is not a sprint, given that this is a race to actually beat the virus? 

Well, Llywydd, the leader of the opposition is right that the race is against the virus, not against any other part of the United Kingdom. That race will be run not over a week, but over months and months ahead. We will still be vaccinating people here in Wales well into the final months of this calendar year, and what I was trying to explain to people is that that will have to be a sustained effort, not something that is just over and done with in a few days or a week. We are going to have to gear up to make sure that we are flat out right across the system to vaccinate the maximum number of people as quickly and as safely as possible. 

Let me deal with the first point that the leader of the opposition made, Llywydd, to make sure that people understand the position here. We are using every bit of the Oxford vaccine that we get as soon as we get it—22,000 doses last week; we expect 25,000 doses this week; 80,000 and maybe a bit more than that next week; and then a rising, and, let's hope, rapidly rising, volume of supply. With the Pfizer vaccine, we received the majority of those 2,800 doses just around Christmas. They have to last us until the end of the first week of February. They're not given to us to use in a few days; that is the supply Wales has for the whole of January and the first week of February as well. And that's why it would never have been a sensible proposition to have suggested that we should have used the whole of that supply in the first few days. That supply has to be evened out over the weeks for which it is available, so that we have vaccinators with work to do in every week able to make the very most of that supply. And the Member will remember that, on 31 December, the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation changed. At that point, we thought we would have to halve that supply, because we needed to be able to deliver two doses of it to everybody within the time that we had that vaccine to use. On 31 December, that advice was changed, and I think it was the right thing to do. It will save, we think, 10,000 people here in Wales from contracting coronavirus, to be able to use a first dose of that vaccine for people more rapidly. But the reason why it hasn't all been used in the first few days is because it's got to last us for six weeks.

Well, First Minister, the health Minister was absolutely right to say that it was a race, and that's why it's crucial that, when doses are received, they are administered as quickly as possible to those in priority groups across Wales. It's clear that the Welsh Government must urgently accelerate the roll-out of the vaccine in Wales if we have any chance of seriously suppressing this virus in our communities. It's also clear that the Welsh Government has to look at using all available medical practitioners to help administer the vaccines, including retired clinicians and more community pharmacists. However, in an open letter, retired consultant surgeon Professor John Fairclough has made it clear that the failure to ease the method by which retired clinicians can be recruited will reduce the capacity of the NHS to achieve its vaccination roll-out.

Indeed, in my own health board area, a retired clinician made it clear to me, and I quote, 'Having read a request for volunteers from our local health board, Hywel Dda, in the local newspaper, I applied a few weeks ago but have heard nothing. It appears I am not the only one who has experienced this. It pains me to see my GP colleagues struggling with their work and having to take on the additional responsibility of administering the vaccine.' End quote. Surely, the Welsh Government should be doing everything possible to recruit retired clinicians to help deliver the vaccine across the country. Therefore, First Minister, can you tell us what steps the Welsh Government is taking to recruit retired clinicians to administer the vaccine? Can you confirm the number of community pharmacists the Welsh Government is planning to use to help roll out the vaccine? And can you also tell us what discussions have been had with health boards across Wales about utilising retired clinicians as an additional workforce in administering the vaccine in Wales and whether there are any barriers in place preventing retired clinicians from helping to deliver the vaccine?

Llywydd, I have been in—[Inaudible.]—between the injection and the infection, and that is the race that I am focused on and the health Minister is focused on: making sure that we maximise our capacity to use whatever supply of vaccine comes our way as a result of the UK Government's procurement of it. Let me be clear, Llywydd—I'm grateful for the opportunities that there have been to discuss this with the UK Government. I discussed it with the other First Ministers and with Michael Gove on Wednesday of last week. I expect to have another discussion tomorrow. The health Ministers met on Thursday of last week, and I'm quite confident that everything that can be done is being done by all four nations to get supplies of the vaccine and to get it to where they are needed and to use it as fast as possible. That's the race that we are involved in here in Wales.

Of course we want to use as many qualified contractors to help us in that effort, and I'm hugely grateful to the enormous response that we have had from GP practices the length and breadth of Wales. I think every single GP practice in the Hywel Dda area has signed up to deliver the vaccine, and we will be deploying community pharmacists as well. The first community pharmacy to deliver the vaccine will be by the end of this week, and that will be in north Wales. There are, as I'm sure Paul Davies understands, some practical things that have got to be sorted out, and you've got to have a bit of a chance to make sure that everything is being done in the best and safest way. You've got to give it a bit of a chance to allow that to be tested. We will test that with community pharmacy in north Wales before the end of this week, and then we will want to use community pharmacists in all parts of Wales. They were very much part of our effort to deliver flu vaccine over the autumn: 1,100,000 people received flu vaccination in Wales over the autumn period, and that just demonstrates the capacity of the system here in Wales to deliver vaccination on a mass scale, using all the different levers available to us. We want people who are retired to come back to help us with that effort. That is how the people that the leader of the opposition referred to knew about that. They'd had an invitation. They'd had a request to come back. Now, we still have to make sure that returning staff are properly equipped for the job we're asking them to do. Even if you're an experienced vaccinator, you've never used these vaccines; you've got to be trained in using these particular vaccines. You need to know the potential ab reactions that there may be to it and that does have to be in place in order for people to be able to operate successfully, effectively and safely. I want those barriers to be the minimum possible, but they've still got to be there to safeguard the person who is carrying out the job and to give confidence to the people who are being vaccinated.

First Minister, the Welsh Government's COVID-19 vaccination strategy also confirms that the number of mass vaccination centres across Wales will be increasing to 35 over the coming weeks, with at least one in each county. Given that the Welsh Government started with seven centres five weeks ago, there is at least some progress on this front, however, it is absolutely critical, which I'm sure that the First Minister will agree with me, that all parts of Wales have a vaccination centre in their own locality.

In my own constituency, which is home to a large elderly population, many people continue to be frustrated at the lack of a vaccination centre in Pembrokeshire, and yet we're still no closer to seeing one set up. Therefore, can you provide the people of Wales with a timetable as to when these new mass vaccination centres will be established, along with their locations, so that we can actually track and monitor their development? And can you also tell us what criteria have been used to decide on the location of each of these centres, so that the people of Wales can understand the rationale behind the Welsh Government's decision making on this particular issue?

I thank Paul Davies for that, Llywydd. He's right that we started with seven mass vaccination centres; we had 14 before Christmas; we have 22 today; and we'll have 35 by the end of the month. I'm confident that there will be one, as there should be, in Pembrokeshire because we want one in every county in Wales. The criteria that have been used to identify those centres are a combination of availability, accessibility and speed. We have to use locations that are quickly available to us. We need them in places where people can get to; people will be driving to them and they've got to be able to park, there has got to be all of those sorts of things, and they need to be the places that can be most speedily brought into use. So, those are amongst the criteria that have been identified in finding the vaccination centres.

I should say, because I know that the Member will be interested in this, that we've got 70 army staff now working with the Welsh Government on exactly those logistical issues. I came into work here in Cathays Park this morning at 8 o'clock and the first four people who went in in front of me were people wearing army fatigues, and we are very grateful indeed for the help that we are getting from the armed forces—both the 14 army vaccinators who are helping us directly with vaccinations, but the 70 other army staff who are helping us with the planning and the provision of the centres that we need and the facilities that go alongside them in every part of Wales.

Llywydd, the notifications of infectious diseases weekly reports published by Public Health England show only the numbers of suspected cases of coronavirus-19, as reported by clinicians. Public Health Wales publishes the total number of cases of COVID-19, as confirmed by laboratory tests.  

I thank the First Minister for that answer. However, First Minister, will you give us definitive figures that illustrate that this is a health crisis caused by an infectious disease like no other? In 2018, there were 32,000 deaths from typhoid fever; in 2019, 17,000 died from—[Inaudible.] And again, in 2018, cumulative deaths from communicable diseases amounted to 91,000. Why is it that we had no lockdowns in these years, yet 99.9 per cent of the population survived? Can you tell us why our health service is overwhelmed by an extra 50 people in intensive care—they were the figures given to us by Vaughan Gething last week—especially given that A&E admissions are down by 30 per cent? Is it not true that every year, during the winter months, for the last two decades, the health service has been in a crisis at this time? 

Did you hear that properly, First Minister? I think that we were struggling with the sound from you, David Rowlands. If you speak later on this afternoon, if you can just speak to the IT people regarding the quality of your sound. First Minister, did you get enough of the question to be able to answer?

I believe I did, Llywydd, although, as you said, it was a bit of a struggle to hear the beginning part. I have heard the Member previously somehow suggest that we are making a fuss about nothing when it comes to coronavirus, that there have been other diseases in other times that we have managed to survive. I honestly fail to understand what he is unable to grasp about this killer disease, which has caused the deaths of thousands of people here now in Wales, and where we are seeing at this point, in this wave of the virus, even more people dying, week by week.

It does absolutely nobody any favours at all to act as though this were not the public health crisis that it is. Over a third of beds in Welsh hospitals today are occupied by people who are so ill with coronavirus that they need the care of a hospital setting. We have almost as many people in critical care today because of coronavirus as at any point in the progress of this disease. Where David Rowlands is right is to say that the health service is trying to go on doing all of the other things that we need it to do. So, there are as many people in critical care beds for other reasons as there are for coronavirus.

But, in order for the health service to be able to get back to dealing, in the way we would all like to see, with all of the other health needs that there are here in Wales, every one of us has to do everything that we can to bear down on the current upswing in the virus here in Wales. Talking about coronavirus as though it were not the serious threat that it is simply undermines, rather than supports, the great national effort that others are making.

First Minister, figures are important. It is important that members of the public and Members of this Senedd and members of the Government have the opportunity to scrutinise the pace of the progress of the disease, and also, of course, the pace of the roll-out of the vaccination here in Wales, in terms of the programme. Many people in north Wales have been in touch with me in recent weeks because, of course, it does seem as though north Wales is lagging behind somewhat in terms of the pace of progress with the roll-out of the programme, albeit that the gap between north Wales and other parts of the country is beginning to close, which I'm pleased to have noted.

Do you accept that we do need to have further data published on a more regular basis, and that, on a daily basis, we should be publishing, by health board, the number of vaccination doses that have been delivered, the proportion of those delivered to each of the priority groups and, indeed, information on missed appointments, which I have been getting reports of at some of the vaccination centres, which of course is depriving other people who do need to get their vaccinations quickly in order to protect them against this dreadful disease?

Well, Llywydd, I hope that it helps if I just give a very brief set of examples of the data that is published all the time in Wales. Testing figures: published daily. Vaccine figures: published daily. TTP figures: published weekly. PPE figures: published weekly. Care home figures: published fortnightly. NHS activity: published fortnightly. I could go on. There is a very long list indeed of data that the Welsh Government publishes all the time, and that is because I agree with the basic point that the Member makes, which is of the importance of keeping people as informed as we can of the progress that the NHS is making.

In that spirit, I'm sure that the Member will welcome the fact that, in the figures that I have seen for today, the number of vaccinations carried out in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board area is now the highest of any part of Wales. So, over 16,000 vaccinations now completed in north Wales. There is no other part of Wales that has broken through the 16,000 barrier as yet. Now, over the weeks, I'm absolutely certain that there will be some days when other health boards do slightly more than north Wales, and there will be days when north Wales is back at the top of the list again. But no part of Wales is being left behind, no part of Wales is being denied its share of the vaccine, and as it happens, today, the part of Wales that has carried out the most vaccinations of all is the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, and I know the Member will welcome that.

Llywydd, I thank Joyce Watson for that very important question. We have and we will continue to lobby the UK Government to maintain the additional £20 universal credit weekly payment and to announce this without delay. If they do not, many households in Wales—300,000 of them—will lose over £1,000 annually. This uncertainty is causing untold levels of anxiety for some of our most vulnerable families.

First Minister, I thank you for that answer, and the figures are indeed, as you've just said, staggering, with the numbers of people who would be subjected to this decrease in what is, we know, the very basic income that they need to exist.

I assume, of course, that the UK Government did predicate this change on some evidence that people needed an additional £20 per week just to survive. What interests me now is what evidence they might have provided to inform them that those people can now survive on £20 less from next April. I haven't seen the evidence. I just wonder, First Minister, whether you've seen the evidence that I haven't.

We know that this is an extremely stressful time for all families in all areas of the UK. It does seem rather inhumane to me to keep that pressure on those families who are struggling, in all sorts of ways, and the uncertainty that it is giving them that, in just eight weeks, they might have their funds cut even further, and the choices that they're having to make on a daily basis being placed upon them. So, could I ask you, First Minister, when you next speak to your counterparts in the Westminster Government, could you ask them to provide the evidence that they seem to have to reduce this very basic of incomes for the families most in need?

Well, Llywydd, I'm very happy to do just that. In November, the Chancellor said that he will be making a determination on this matter early in the new year. On 8 January we finally got a reply to a letter that the finance Minister here had written with counterparts in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive back in November, saying that the Chancellor was going to wait for more evidence before making up his mind. Well, what evidence does he need, Llywydd? Presumably the £20 a week was a recognition of four years of freezing benefits for people of working age and the abolition of the family element of tax credits and universal credit. If they need further evidence, Llywydd, I'm happy to provide it myself.

I'll just for one moment tell you that my constituency office staff, as well as having spent the run up to Christmas having to give out food bank vouchers on a scale we'd never seen before, on Christmas Eve we were contacted by a single-parent family with five children who literally had nothing in the house at all with which to feed those children over the Christmas period. My office, like all of yours, people are working from home and they are having to do the very best they can in those circumstances, and they spent Christmas Eve running around trying to make sure that those five children had something to eat over Christmas. In the end, a fantastic local business provided them with the food they needed and we managed to get it to them.

But, Llywydd, I cannot tell you how angry it makes me that, in the twenty-first century, we have a system that leaves children here in Wales in that position. They were in that position not by accident; they were in that position because the family cap policy of this Government had left that family in that circumstance. It is a cruel policy—a cruel policy—that shifts onto children the consequences of parents' behaviour. I'm very happy to provide that evidence to UK Ministers when next I have an opportunity, and to say to them that those families need to know now—now—that they are not going to be asked to manage with £1,000 less after the end of March of this year.

The UK Government has boosted the welfare system by £7.4 billion in 2021, including the temporary £20-a-week uplift in universal credit standard allowance and working tax credit basic element. In common with the Welsh Government, the UK Government is keeping all its coronavirus measures under review as the pandemic position changes. As the Prime Minister reconfirmed last week, extending the universal credit uplift beyond April is being kept under review. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stated:

'As the Government has done throughout this crisis, it will continue to assess how best to support low-income families, which is why we will look at the economic and health context in the new year.'

It therefore doesn't have plans to cut universal credit from April. However, given your devolved responsibilities, how do you respond to the calls by the Bevan Foundation, Citizens Advice Cymru and Community Housing Cymru for the Welsh Government to establish a single point of access for benefits and support schemes administered in Wales?

Well, Llywydd, the Member attempts to be an apologist for the UK Government in this regard; it does him no good at all. Keeping it under review is no good to those families in my constituency who rely on that £20 every week to put food on the table for their children. They don't need a review, Mr Isherwood; they need to know that the money is coming to them. Alun Davies asked me a question earlier, Llywydd, about the nonsense that Conservative politicians are putting around about the £1 billion that the Welsh Government is said to have and that we will use during the rest of this financial year. The Treasury has £25 billion in its coronavirus reserve. Why don't they make their minds up and tell those families who rely on it that that money is coming to them? That's what I'd like to see.

While I share some of the obvious and genuine anger that the First Minister feels about the way in which the benefit system affects people here in Wales, I'd like to put it to the First Minister that there is something that he could do for some of those families. It's estimated by the Child Poverty Action Group that there are about 70,000 children in Wales whose families are in receipt of universal credit and yet they are not eligible for free school meals in Wales. Can I ask the First Minister today, should the UK Government make the decision to remove the £20 uplift—and like the First Minister, I very much hope that they don't do that and that they provide families with certainty—but if they do that, does the First Minister accept that there is of course something that the Welsh Government could do for those families within its devolved powers, and that is to provide those children and those families with entitlement to free school meals?

I thank Helen Mary Jones for that question. Of course, it's an important one. She will know that the Welsh Government has led the way in making sure that free school meals are available to current beneficiaries through the school holidays, not now just until the end of 2020, but for the whole of 2021. The policy that the Member advocates is one that would have to be looked at very carefully. I'll give her the costings of it: if we assume that those 70,000 families had one child each, then that would cost us £33 million. If we assume that they had two children each, it would cost us £67 million, and if we thought that they had, on average, three children each, it would cost us £101 million. That is very serious money indeed in the circumstances we find ourselves in, and that money will have to be found from somewhere else, because there is no money sitting around in the Welsh Government doing nothing. So, I think there's a case to be made—of course there is—and I've seen it made by the Child Poverty Action Group and others. But I just have to put it to the Member that it is not a choice between doing that and letting everything else carry on; it is a choice between doing that and stopping something else that is undoubtedly necessary and important to many other Welsh citizens.

Racism in any form has no place in Wales—direct or indirect. A great deal of ground still has to be made up at all levels before sport in Wales fully reflects and celebrates the diversity of our nation.

Thank you, First Minister. Over the Christmas period, Dragons Rugby winger Ashton Hewitt was subjected to racial abuse on social media. Sadly, this is not an isolated event, and it was only one in a long line of posts that Ashton has received because he's a black player. It's not just confined to one person or sport. Last year, Ashton used his platform to call out racial abuse and raise awareness of racism. Ashton has praised the support he's had from his club—the Dragons—and the Welsh Rugby Players Association, but he has said:

'It was just important for me to highlight that it does happen in my sport. It's not perfect and it's important that people acknowledge and take action.'

Much of the abuse on social media comes from anonymous accounts. While Ashton has said he would like to have a constructive conversation with the person who racially abused him, social media anonymity is a problem with obvious solutions. Many apps and advertising require proof of identification to create an account; similar checks could easily be made on social media platforms. Will the First Minister join me in commending Ashton Hewitt for speaking out about racism in sport, and look at how we can support him and others to put an end to all racism? And will the First Minister use his voice in urging the social media giants to strengthen their regulations around anonymous accounts, so that there's nowhere for people to hide? 

I thank Jayne Bryant for that, and of course I'm very keen to join her in commending the way in which Mr Hewitt responded to the dreadful abuse that he received. I thought his response was remarkable, really. It was dignified and it was designed to try to put right the wrongs that had been carried out. I absolutely commend him for that. 

The general point that Jayne Bryant makes is a really important one. As I understand it, the account of the person who abused Mr Hewitt has now been cancelled. But, we've seen, not just in this instance—surely we saw it across the Atlantic in the United States recently—the harm that is done when people who abuse social media platforms go unchallenged. And I think, maybe, in some ways, we are all a bit inclined to dismiss that stuff as somehow just belonging to a fringe element, and we shouldn't get too worked up about it all. But I think the events that we saw in the United States demonstrate just how insidious that far-right occupation of social media has become, and it's here in Wales as well. It spreads the myths about coronavirus, it encourages people to believe that people who are providing public services to assist them are somehow never to be trusted and always to be suspected.

I think there is more—definitely more—that the platforms themselves need to do to challenge disinformation, to challenge people who seek to pursue their pernicious views in ways that the internet, which in other ways is such a blessing and a boon—the way it has opened up a space for people who wish to use it for entirely illegitimate and destructive purposes. And I agree with what the Member said about the need to urge them to do more to make sure that that does not happen.

Happy new year, First Minister. The Black Lives Matter protest and incidents like that just raised by Jayne Bryant have encouraged governments at all levels now to look at the inequalities facing BAME people in all aspects of life, and sport has had a particularly high profile due to sportsmen like Sir Lewis Hamilton and all the premiership football teams still taking the knee. Campaigners have made the point, though, that nothing will change unless there is greater representation of BAME people in the higher echelons of sporting organisations. In football, for example, a quarter of Premier League football players are black, however there are only six managers from a BAME background in the professional game, and just one director of football. In 2003, in the National Football League in America, they brought in the Rooney rule to address the under-representation of African American coaches in American football, by which at least one black candidate is on the shortlist for interview when a manager's job becomes vacant. What discussions has the Welsh Government had with sports councils, sports organisations, clubs and national governing bodies to review representation and pathways for black, Asian and minority ethnic people in Wales?

I thank Laura Anne Jones for her new year greeting, but also for shining a light on this really important area and for some of the ideas that she has explored. We are absolutely not immune from this difficulty here in Wales. There are no black people on any of the 17 sporting boards that were recently investigated, and that includes the Welsh Rugby Unio and the Football Association of Wales. Nine out of 17 Welsh sports organisations have no BAME staff members and 10 out of 17 Welsh sports organisations have no BAME board members. These are not acceptable figures, Llywydd, they're absolutely not, and the Rooney rule is one of the ways in which some of that can be addressed.

I do want to say that Sport Wales is very actively trying to address this itself. The Tell Your Story and Our Stories Matter campaigns are both designed to make sure that the experience of black people in sport in Wales is properly understood and recognised, but that needs to be true of the very top of the sporting world as well. At board level, we need to see the experience of black sportsmen and women properly represented. The Welsh Government is committed to that, our race equality action plan will help us with that, and there are other ways, Llywydd, as well.

The audit of commemoration in Wales, which we instituted earlier in the autumn, identified a number of black rugby league players who were forced to leave Wales because of discrimination in the union code. It is remarkable to me that Billy Boston, who I believe is still alive, has a statue to him in Wigan and a statue to him in Wembley, but no statue to him at all here in Wales, and I commend the actions that Cardiff council is taking to try to put that right. So, I thank the Member for raising the points that she did, because they are very important and there is a really serious agenda that sport in Wales is grappling with and needs to make proper progress in resolving.

I thank Angela Burns for that question, Llywydd. Plans for the roll-out of the AstraZeneca vaccine have been made and are now being activated. These plans will run alongside the existing arrangements for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, of which we continue to receive supplies.

Thank you for that. The first thing I have to say is that the vaccinations are a light in a very, very dark tunnel, and I'm deeply grateful, as I know millions of us are, to those amazing scientists who've come up with the vaccine programmes of all the different countries in such a short space of time. It's so important to get that vaccine roll-out into the community, because we all know that by tackling the community, then we can start to drive down this terrible coronavirus. I just want to pose two questions to you, where I've come across barriers or things that could be potential barriers to the roll-out of that vaccine in our community, because I think that time is of the essence, and it's very important that you and everyone else is really aware of this.

The first is that I've had GPs in Pembrokeshire come to me deeply concerned because district nurses have been told that in order to be able to vaccinate, they need to undertake basic life support training. It just strikes me, first of all, that district nurses, of all of us, will understand and know basic life support. It's a function of being a front-line healthcare worker. Secondly, they vaccinate every single day, for flu and all sorts of things. I did hear your answer to Paul Davies, and I do understand that some of the vaccinations do have side effects and we have to be really well aware of things like anaphylactic shock et cetera. But I wondered if you would have a look at this and see if that and those other barriers are stopping people who are trained professionals, who are already in the health service, from being able to be part of the vaccination programme, because I think it is key that we get as many people out there vaccinating as possible. 

And the second part is: I wonder if you are aware or can explain why health boards and, to my understanding, Public Health Wales, chose not to go down the route of getting a wholesale distribution licence for the vaccine so that they could then buy and sell it on, transfer it straight to the general practices, which would help again with the speedy deployment of the vaccine in the community, instead of the GPs having to go through quite an arcane ordering process, setting up new rules and regulations. Both of these have been queries that have been raised with me, and I'd be very grateful for your view on them either now or in a subsequent letter. 

Llywydd, I thank Angela Burns for that, and, of course, I'll look properly into the questions that she's raised, and if there's more to add, I'll write to her with it. 

I think she probably answered her first question herself. All new vaccines bring with them new risks. And even if you're a really experienced vaccinator in other contexts, it is just right that you are trained to make sure that you are aware of the risks that may be there and that you're equipped to respond to them. I want that to be done in the easiest way possible and the quickest way possible, and I certainly don't want to have people who are well equipped already having to go over things that they already know, but with a new vaccine, and a new virus—this time last year, we'd hardly heard of the virus, let alone of the vaccine to it—and making sure that the people we ask to do these really important jobs are as equipped as they need to be, I think, is important, and a bit of investment in that in the early stage will pay off hugely over the run ahead.

In relation to the ordering process, I think it is simply there in order to ensure fairness. We had only 22,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine last week; we've only 25,000 doses of it this week. If we simply allowed GPs to be in a free-for-all for ordering it, there might not be any vaccine in Pembrokeshire at all because it would have been collared by GPs who just got quicker on the line and got it elsewhere. So, our ordering process is designed to make sure that there is vaccine available in every part of Wales, and as we bring them on stream, to every practice. We're hoping there'll be 34 practices in Hywel Dda, for example, every practice in the Member's own constituency, with vaccine to use by the week of 24 January. And having an ordering process that allows us to make sure that the limited supply we have is fairly available in all parts of Wales is what lies behind the system that we have. If there is more to it than that, I'll make sure that I write to the Member with a further explanation. 

Finally, question 7, Dawn Bowden. 

Llywydd, despite our repeated calls, the UK Government continues to make funding announcements at the eleventh hour without any engagement with the devolved Governments and without any immediate clarity on implications for Wales. Confusion surrounding last week's announcement on business support is only the latest example.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Last week, I was very pleased to read on the Welsh Conservatives' social media accounts that the UK Government was providing £220 million of—and I quote—'extra funding' to support jobs and businesses in Wales. That would certainly be very welcome and much needed at this time, especially in areas like my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. The announcement was also described by the Welsh Conservatives' economy spokesman, Russell George, as—and again, I quote—'an additional £227 million'. Then the UK Treasury embarrassingly corrected its own press notice after wrongly claiming that the Chancellor's announcement meant extra or additional money for Wales. I recall that, last July, the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the whole lack of transparency in Treasury budgets was contributing to the confusion about the financial support being given to devolved Governments, making it more difficult to scrutinise and saying that this was corrosive to public trust. Well, First Minister, I got my calculator out, and that tells me that £227 million multiplied by nil equals nil. So, is my calculator wrong, or have we, in fact, been told one of the most misleading and dishonest statements ever told by the Welsh Tories? And does this not prove that the UK Government should follow the Welsh Government's more transparent approach?

Well, Llywydd, I'm afraid that the Member's calculator is accurate. And she's right of course—she set out the history of it. The Treasury made an announcement—I heard it myself on the radio—that there was an extra £227 million coming to Wales. That was, I thought, very good news—we would have been able to use it to top up the most generous package of support for businesses anywhere in the United Kingdom. And then it turned out a few hours later that, no, this wasn't extra money at all—we'd apparently had it already. Well, that really isn't the way to conduct business across the UK nations.

The Welsh Government will lay a further supplementary budget, Llywydd, which we'll put in front of the Senedd early in February. This will be the third time that Senedd Members have had a chance to see how the Welsh Government is using the money that is available to us in this extraordinary financial year. Finance Committee will be able to consider it, questions will be asked on the floor of the Senedd, and all the figures will be there, for all Members to see. The UK Government has not published a single supplementary estimate, in the whole of this financial year. And I think the Member makes a very good point about the importance of being clear with people, where the money is coming from, what it's being used for. We try and do that here in the Welsh Government, and we would have been helped, particularly over the issue that Dawn Bowden has referred to, if there had been some greater accuracy and transparency in the way the UK Government described the money, which in the end did not come at all to Wales.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition in respect of his law officer responsibilities. And the first question is from Mandy Jones.

Listing in all north Wales magistrates' courts is now at pre-COVID levels, and all Crown courtrooms in north Wales have been made safe for jury trials. We're seeking assurance from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service that the existing measures are suitable for the current transmissibility of the virus. Providers delivering advice services via the Welsh Government single advice fund have been working to deliver remote access to advice during the pandemic.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. During the course of last year, many reports suggested a huge and growing backlog of cases in both criminal and civil courts, and concerns have been raised that victims of rape and sexual assault, in particular, may be put off carrying on with their cases, as they just want to move on with their lives. What discussions have you had with the Ministry of Justice about this, and what is the position in Wales, please?

We have had discussions with the Ministry of Justice in relation to appropriate court facilities across Wales for the purposes that the Member has referred to today. There has been a magistrates' court recovery programme, on which the Ministry of Justice position is that that is largely work in terms of building back capacity in all parts of Wales, including in north Wales. And in the Crown courts system, there have been some refurbishment works and repurposing works to courtrooms in order to extend capacity, and, as the Member will be aware, in south Wales in particular, the use of Nightingale courts as well. But the point that the Member makes is very important, in that the impact of COVID can be felt in many different aspects of our society, and obviously in the justice system as well. And I'm pleased that she has highlighted this issue in proceedings today; it's a matter that, as a Government, we continue to make representations to the Ministry of Justice.

The Welsh Government wrote to the Secretary of State on 16 December 2020 indicating our intention to challenge the Bill, as it was at that point. We have received a response to that letter in the past few days, and we are considering the content of that letter at the moment. The Welsh Government will take all possible steps to protect the Senedd from this outrageous attack on its powers in this Bill. 

Thank you for that response, because, after all, this Parliament refused its legislative consent to this Bill. That was ignored by the UK Government. We are losing powers, we are losing funds and losing control over our funds. Rejecting consent hasn't helped at all. So, how will you ensure that we don't lose powers and funds by challenging this internal market Bill? And what discussions have you had with the Scottish Government and the Northern Irish executive, who have also refused their legislative consent to this legislation? 

Well, from the very outset, I made it clear that the Government here would take all possible steps to safeguard the powers of the Senedd. We have done that in terms of our strategy of tabling amendments in Westminster working with the House of Lords. We've done so in terms of recommending the rejection of legislative consent, as, of course, happened. And the third element of that strategy is to take the legal steps that I have already alluded to. As I have said, we've received a letter in response to the letter that I sent and that is being considered at the moment in detail. But what I would tell the Member is this: I've read the letter and, in my view, the questions that we posed haven't been answered. So, I do expect us to proceed with legal proceedings and I expect to be in a position to make a written statement to Members next week updating them on that. 

I have agreed that questions two and three should be grouped and, therefore, I will call Delyth Jewell to ask her supplementary question to the Counsel General. 

Diolch, Lywydd. I thank the Counsel General for that answer that he gave to my colleague, Dai Lloyd. I also thank him for making plans to bring forward this challenge against the Act's unacceptable provisions in relation to devolution, which, of course, I'd urged him to take in September. I note what he just said in terms of the written statement that we can expect next week. But I wonder whether he would be in a position, either now or then, to be able to share more details with us in the Senedd about these plans. I'd be interested to learn about the basis for the legal challenge, given that the Act has been drawn in such a way as to attempt to preclude such a challenge from being brought, which provisions specifically he intends to challenge. I'd also like to know the timescale involved, given that there is an election coming up and, also, that the internal market Act, in its current form, could make it difficult for the next Senedd to pass important legislation, such as reducing the use of single use plastics. So, could I ask, is the Counsel General in a position to be able to share that information today, or, indeed, in the statement next week? Or are there legal reasons why he can't do that at the current time, please? 

Well, can I firstly acknowledge gratefully the support that the Member has given to the Welsh Government in our intention to stand up for the Senedd? I'm mindful of the fact that, I think, very early after I made my statement that we planned to do that, the Member was very supportive. So, I'd like to acknowledge that if I may. 

There are two or three aspects to the Member's question. Firstly, in relation to advice I have given to other colleagues in relation to the basis for the claim, obviously the advice will be privileged in the usual way, as I'm sure the Member is aware. But obviously I will want to make sure that the basis of the claim and the response from the UK Government is taken fully into account in the statement that I make to Members, so that you can have a clear picture of what's intended and the analysis of the Government to the letter, which I think came in on Friday of last week. In relation to timescale, there is obviously a court procedure, which will be followed when the time comes. Clearly, I wish to give an indication of the outline of that in the statement next week, and I plan throughout to keep Members fully appraised on developments in this matter, given its significance to Members and to the institution generally. 

The internal market legislation, as it stands, runs roughshod over the democratic institutions of the United Kingdom and the very mandate of this place. What Boris and his cronies have done so far has made even Tory ex-Ministers and Tory Prime Ministers object in the strongest possible terms because it will disenfranchise Welsh citizens and encourage the break-up of the UK they purport to protect. That Wales's international musicians have been denied visas by the UK Government while Boris blames Brussels or that Boris has now weakened environmental protections and allowed a dangerous pesticide back into the UK that kills bees and ecosystems is telling. So, Counsel General, now that the UK Government is reneging on their false promises to give European money to the NHS or that Wales will not lose out financially or that environmental protections will stay, this means only that we're starting to see those consequences of leaving emerge. So, what assurances can you give the Senedd that the Welsh Government will explore all of the legal avenues to ensure that the very best interests of Wales and our citizens are served?

Well, I'm glad to give the assurance that the Member seeks. The most recent example of that is, of course, the internal market Act itself and the steps that we have outlined as a Government that we will take in all the options available to us to protect the competence of the Senedd. 

In relation to the broader point that the Member asks about, representing Wales's interests in the world after we have departed from the European Union, as we have, and the end of the transition period, she gives two examples there. One was in relation to the use of neonicotinoids, I believe, and I know my colleague the environment Minister will want me to reassure her that this, in Wales, is devolved to Wales. And in relation to the other point that she makes, about access to visas, we have continued throughout to make representations to the UK Government in relation to the operation of its new immigration system. Probably two years ago, mid 2019, was the last inter-governmental meeting between Ministers in relation to migration policy. And since then, we have not succeeded in being able to re-establish those. They are very important. Even though migration policy obviously is reserved, the impact of it in Wales, in the way that the Member's question identifies and in a range of other ways, is felt very keenly, and therefore it's very appropriate for Governments to work together in relation to some of these aspects, and we call on the UK Government to reinstate that inter-ministerial set of discussions so that we can do just that. 

Absolutely. The Deputy Minister and Chief Whip last wrote to the UK Government in November. Their response defends the position to increase state pension age and highlights the judgments from the legal challenge in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which supported the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions. But the Government continues to make the case on behalf of the women affected. 

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his answer, and I know that the members of the Llanelli WASPI group and other WASPI groups across Mid and West Wales and across Wales will be grateful for the Welsh Government's continuing stance on this. I wonder if the Counsel General has any further information with regard to the timing of the investigation currently being undertaken by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into potential maladministration. We're obviously all aware that that was delayed because of the legal cases, but, now those legal cases are resolved, I wonder if the Counsel General and Welsh Government would feel able to make some inquiries with the ombudsman to see by when they expect to report on the potential maladministration in this case. 

I thank the Member for that supplementary. I will make sure that the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip has heard that, because the substantive matter is obviously within her portfolio. But in relation to the proceedings insofar as they relate to the ombudsman itself, my understanding is that the investigation relates to a sample of six complaints about DWP communications. They have been on hold, as I understand it, as a consequence of COVID, but I will make sure that I pass on the question and the point the Member has made to my ministerial colleague who can make sure that we get the best possible indication of what the future process may look like and the time that may take. It's absolutely essential, as the Member's question implies, that the women affected get the clarity of the outcome of those proceedings at the earliest possible opportunity.

Decisions relating to the asylum system are reserved and so are beyond our direct control. However, given the impact of the decision to utilise Penally on community cohesion and public services, we should have been fully consulted, and we are still unclear about the legal basis under which this development was initiated by the UK Government.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his answer. Does he believe that the temporary planning permission that has been granted, which expires in March this year, is actually lawful and will continue to be, and what further steps can he and the Welsh Government take through that legal process in an attempt to ensure that this evidently unsuitable site for these people ceases to be used in this way? It's clear that the COVID crisis has made that particular site even less suitable than it was before for occupancy by these vulnerable individuals. So, is there more that the Counsel General can do, looking at the legality of the planning process, to attempt to influence the return of this property to the Ministry of Defence as soon as possible?

I thank the Member for that supplementary, and she is of course absolutely right to say that this accommodation is inappropriate for the purpose to which it's being put. That is the position of the Welsh Government and we've obviously acted on that basis and made representations in that way to the UK Government. As I mentioned to her, in relation to the underpinning legal infrastructure and framework around the decision that's been taken by the UK Government, we've received no confirmation from them of the legislative basis on which they are themselves basing their decision to use Penally, so it's unclear to us whether the powers they have been using in relation to that have been properly complied with. A range of powers potentially come into play—the Immigration and Asylum Act in particular, but also there'll be requirements in the Equality Act, the public sector equality duty, and the European convention that would require steps to be taken, which, it appears to us, may well not have been taken. Some of those will have involved working with—[Inaudible.]—including the Welsh Government, and certainly that hasn't been complied with. So, there's a range of potential legal issues that might arise. But, as I say, at this point in time we still do not have clarity from the UK Government about the legal basis upon which it's been operating.

I thank the Counsel General.

That brings us to our next item, and that is the business statement and announcement. I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have several changes to this week's business. The Minister for Health and Social Services will shortly make a statement on the COVID-19 vaccine strategy. To accommodate this, with Business Committee's agreement, I've reduced the time allocated to the debate on my draft budget statement to 60 minutes. Later this afternoon, the Government will seek a suspension of Standing Orders to enable us to debate the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, South Africa) (Wales) Regulations 2020, and the LCM on the Trade Bill. Finally, Business Committee has agreed to postpone tomorrow's debate by the Independent Alliance for Reform group until next week. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

I call for a Welsh Government statement regarding autistic adults being prioritised for the COVID vaccine. As a constituent wrote, 'My brother lives in north Wales and he has both a learning disability and autism. Recent research by Public Health England stated that the death rate from COVID is six times higher for people with a learning disability than the general population. We know from the cross-party autism group', they said, 'that there are many more individuals like my autistic brother in Wales, and receiving the COVID vaccine would be an enormous help to them and their families.'

I also call for a statement responding to the calls by the North Wales Police Federation for policing to be considered for some priority on the COVID-19 vaccination programme. As they told me, 'Day in, day out, police officers put their own safety, health and well-being at risk whilst protecting us all. Sadly, in north Wales we've seen many colleagues who've become unwell with COVID-19, some requiring hospital treatment and many more having to self-isolate.' I call for those statements accordingly.

Thank you to Mark Isherwood for raising both of those issues. As I set out in the business statement, we do have a statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services next on today's agenda and that does deal specifically with our approach to vaccination in Wales. I know that he will take that opportunity to say more about the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the advice that it provides to Welsh Government in terms of the priority schedules. So, Llywydd, we do have that debate coming next this afternoon.

I want to press the case for a COVID vaccination centre for the Rhondda and also for vaccines to the wider community to be available on the basis of need. There remains a high prevalence of COVID within my constituency, and many of us now know families who have lost someone tragically to this. The health board have discussed with the local authority where to locate the centres in Rhondda Cynon Taf, and Aberdare has been chosen. It's not possible for many people from the Rhondda to get to Aberdare. We've got low car ownership and, of course, people are being discouraged from using public transport. Now, I welcome the news that GP surgeries are engaging in this and will be vaccinating the high-risk groups soon, and much of that work has started already. But it has been suggested that the Rhondda will not get our share of vaccines. Now, I'm not sure of the truth of this, but I want to put the case for that extra sense of urgency for my constituency, the Rhondda, given the high level of prevalence and need that we have here.

Thank you to Leanne Wood for raising that. We all feel that real sense of urgency on behalf of the people we represent here at the Senedd. Again, I'd point to the fact that we've got the statement from the Minister for health next this afternoon. I appreciate it's only just been added to the agenda today, so Members weren't aware that it would be forthcoming, but, as I say, any requests for statements regarding the vaccination process will be met with the statement by the Minister next this afternoon.

Minister, I wonder if I could have a statement from the Government on the roll-out of the drug fampridine in Wales. This is a drug available in respect of multiple sclerosis. A statement was issued by the health Minister a year ago that it would be available for free on the NHS. I have a constituent who has been paying £200 a month for the drug. He has raised this matter. I've certainly notified Welsh Government on this, but there is no indication yet from Cardiff and Vale health board that they are able to deliver this drug, which he continues to pay for, and it seems to me to be appropriate at this stage for there to be a proper assessment of the extent to which this drug is being rolled out and is freely available, rather than people still having to pay for it, if that is the case.

Thank you to Mick Antoniw for raising that. I know that he has had the opportunity to raise this directly with the health Minister on behalf of his constituent as well. I will say that I understand that it was the case that the recommendation by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group to allow this drug for use in Wales was ratified by the Welsh Government on 12 December, and it has been made available in health boards. But I do understand that there is a specific delay in Cardiff and the Vale, and I understand that that is due to consultant vacancies. I can reassure Mick Antoniw that Dr Andrew Goodall has written to the chief executive of Cardiff and Vale University Health Board in December asking for an update on that latest position and what the health board is proposing to do to ensure that patients can access the drug without delay, and the health Minister will update Mick Antoniw as soon as we do have a response from the health board on that. 

Thank you. Russell George.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer, and happy new year, Trefnydd. Could I ask for an oral statement, Trefnydd, on further financial support for Welsh businesses during the pandemic? I appreciate fully that the vaccination programme is a priority for Government, but also I'd suggest is the ongoing business support that is needed. There's a particular concern for more clarity and information about the support available for the hospitality sector, which was forced to close on 20 December and was under considerable restrictions before that date. I would be grateful if you could bring forward an oral statement so we can also, as Members, ask questions on the Government's progress. And particular areas that need to be addressed I'd suggest are the economic resilience fund and issues around eligibility for that fund. There's a suggestion of the 1 September date, which has been set by the Welsh Government to be signed up by for particular funding, which I think needs to be questioned. And I also think we do need a rolling programme of support for business payments on a monthly basis, and I would like that to be discussed as well during a Senedd statement. I would be grateful if you could consider a statement either from yourself or from the economy Minister. 

I'm grateful to Russell George for raising this issue, and I do share his view that the support for business absolutely has to be a top priority for Welsh Government, and I can provide the reassurance that it is. Russell George will remember that before Christmas the Welsh Government announced a package of £450 million of further support for businesses across Wales, maintaining our most generous package of business support anywhere in the UK. 

I can say that I have been having some meetings with my colleague the Minister for the economy to discuss what further support might be needed when we get beyond the end of this month in terms of support for business, depending, of course, on the picture in terms of the pandemic. And we would, obviously, provide that clarity to business as soon as we are able to do so. But I will, obviously, again make sure that he's aware of that request for an oral statement to accompany any further detail about support for business. 

I'd like to request, Trefnydd, a statement from the education Minister on a number of matters relating to how the system is responding to the current crisis. Firstly, there's a question of school deficits, school debts. Before COVID-19, Carmarthenshire County Council was working very hard with school leaders to bring down school deficits. However, since March 2020, schools and local authorities have been having to provide additional support for pupils, and we would like to ask Welsh Government for assurances around how that funding will be able to continue, and that there will be a sympathetic approach taken to those schools who have not been able to resolve their deficits. 

I'd like to be able to question the Minister about funding for school refurbishment. Carmarthenshire County Council tell me that they're unable to use twenty-first century schools funding to refurbish buildings, but they are able to build new ones. Obviously, the pandemic has had an effect on the ability to roll out new school buildings, and that's led to some issues, particularly, for example, in Ysgol Dewi Sant in Llanelli, where there's an urgent need for refurbishment and the local authority doesn't feel it has sufficient budgets. 

And finally, I'd like to be able to ask the Minister about the processes for consulting on school changes during the COVID period. A number of local authorities across the mid and west region are consulting on changes, many of those very positive changes that I'm sure most representatives would wish to support, but it has been put to me, for example, by parents from Ysgol Mynydd y Garreg near Kidwelly, that it's very difficult for communities to respond to proposed changes at a time of COVID, when people can't meet, it's very difficult to campaign, it's very difficult to have the discussions with your local representatives. So, I'd like to be able to ask the Minister whether she feels that, given the new restrictions, we need to review whether or not this is the right time for those consultations to proceed, in order to ensure that all voices can be heard where big changes are to be made that affect communities.

I thank Helen Mary Jones for raising those three particular areas of concern this afternoon. So, it was school deficits, school refurbishment within the context of twenty-first century schools, and the process for consulting on any changes during the current period of restrictions and the context of the pandemic. I will, on this occasion, ask Helen Mary to send that in a letter to the education Minister, so that she can respond to each of those concerns, because they are quite detailed and complex areas and perhaps it would be good to be able to point to the relevant guidance and so on on this occasion.

Sorry, I think I've returned. So sorry about that. That was an internet failure. It was the circle of doom that went round. Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to see you back, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think we all are. I think also all of us were also appalled and shocked to see the scenes from Washington last week, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families, of course, who lost loved ones in that attempt to undermine America's democracy. Now, what we saw last week was no accident. It was a pre-planned attempt to undermine the democracy of the American election. It was clearly incited by Donald Trump, but it was more rooted in lies and misinformation over many, many months and years. And it is a warning, I think, Minister, Deputy Presiding Officer, to everyone who believes in democracy, and I'm concerned about the integrity of our own election, to be held in the next few months. We've already seen in Wales how the far right and their friends at the moment who are currently in the Abolish party are willing to undermine our own democracy with their use of misinformation and sometimes outright lies in order to reach people. It is important, therefore, that we are able to have a debate on how we conduct our elections and our politics in this country. Minister, I would like to see a debate in Government time on these matters. I would also like to ask the Government and the Senedd Commission to speak to Facebook, to Twitter, to regulators such as Ofcom, and the Electoral Commission, to ensure that our democracy is not undermined by those who cannot win an election.

Thank you to Alun Davies for raising this issue this afternoon. I, and colleagues in Government, shared that sense of shock at the scenes that we saw unfolding last week, and clearly it's devastating that it did result in the loss of lives as well. I share his deep concern about misinformation and the impact that that may have on our democracy, so I will absolutely take it upon myself to have those conversations appropriately within Government to explore how we can engage with the social media giants and others to ensure that they play their part in ensuring that misinformation is addressed. And I'd also point, within the context of the COVID pandemic, to the good work that Public Health Wales is doing in terms of addressing some of those concerning aspects of misinformation that are circulating regarding the virus and the vaccine and so forth, and so I'd be keen to encourage colleagues to share the dispelling of those myths and misinformation that Public Health Wales is working on.

Trefnydd—two statements that I'm looking for, please. The first is an urgent written joint statement from the Minister for Education and the Minister for local government about the real confusion being experienced by families about the school or hub settings that councils are providing during the period of school closures. The three local authorities in South Wales West are doing things completely differently, or at least I assume so, as, unfortunately, Swansea city council hasn't had the courtesy to respond to my enquiries. The information on the Welsh Government website is not resolving confusion about critical workers and key workers, the apparent ability of councils to pick and choose who counts as a critical or key worker, and the turning of a blind eye to the Welsh Government requirement that only one parent need be a critical worker in order for a child to be eligible to attend school or a hub. I would like some information about the actual education to be anticipated to be received at those hubs as well.

And then, secondly, just a brief statement from the Welsh Government to fully explain the confusion that occurred over the weekend regarding the vaccination for certain members of school staff who administer intimate care to children in special schools. It wasn't great communication at a time when we were all talking about vaccines anyway, but the short clarification that came out doesn't seem to cover the situation for teachers in mainstream schools, not just other staff, who find themselves having to administer a level of personal care to children who need that care. I think we could all do, actually, with further clarification on that. Thank you.

Thank you for raising those issues. I will make sure that the education and local government Ministers are aware of that first request in terms of some clarity around the hub settings. My understanding is that there is an issue in terms of how many children are able to access those hub settings, but, of course, I will speak to both of those Ministers to try and get the kind of clarity that's being sought there.  

And then, in terms of the JCVI advice, I know that, again, we have the statement from the health Minister this afternoon on vaccinations, so there may be an opportunity to clarify it there, but, if not, I will ask the Minister to write to colleagues with some more information on the advice that we are receiving from the JCVI.

I'd like a statement, please, from the Government explaining why so many people who are in their 80s and 90s and who are housebound have been invited to appointments for vaccinations in mass vaccination centres, when they were never going to be able to get to those appointments. I've been contacted by numerous constituents, primarily in Caerphilly, but I'd wager that it's probably happening in communities across Wales, whose family members have been sent invitations to appointments that they just can't make. Now, I've raised this with the health board, and I know that other Members have done this too, and I do feel reassured that mobile units will be making house visits to people who are housebound once the work of vaccinating residents of care homes is completed. Now, I understand that they're also considering working with district nurses to do this, but surely, Trefnydd, the Welsh Government should have ensured that no-one was sent those letters for appointments that they wouldn't be able to make. These letters have caused confusion and anxiety for many vulnerable people, and apparently a helpline that's dealing with this isn't always working. So, I'd like a statement, please, reiterating what the national plan is, as well as a timetable for people who are housebound and how you'll be working with health boards to ensure that people who aren't able to leave their houses but are in the priority groups are going to be vaccinated. I would also, finally, Trefnydd, like an explanation about why this wasn't communicated better from the start to avoid unnecessary confusion and distress for people.

So, the Welsh Government was the first Government in the UK to publish a vaccination plan, so that occurred yesterday and might provide some of the information that is required. I was concerned to hear the comment about the helpline not necessarily being available, so I'll certainly make sure that we look into that. And then I'd also just highlight again that the next item of business this afternoon is the statement on vaccinations, so I'm sure that the Minister has been listening closely to all of the contributions during the business statement today and will obviously be listening closely again to contributions during his statement this afternoon.

I'd like to ask for a statement, please, on the operation of the childcare offer for Wales during these tier 4 arrangements. Parents in my constituency have been told that if they decide not to send their children into nursery, because they're trying to follow the Welsh Government's advice to stay home, they will either have to pay the money themselves or lose their place. And further to that, I'm very concerned about the impact that that would have on the viability of childcare provision, especially in areas like the Valleys. So, I think it's vital that we have urgent clarification on this and I'd be grateful if a statement could be brought forward. Thank you.

Thank you to Lynne Neagle for raising this. I know that she has already taken the opportunity, on behalf of constituents, to raise it directly with the Deputy Minister for social care as well. I know, as a result, the Deputy Minister is really very alive to this particular issue and is looking to resolve it as soon as possible, and I know that she'll be keen to provide the clarity that Lynne Neagle is seeking.

I just wanted to return to the tragic death of Mohamud Mohammed Hassan, who was one of my constituents. Obviously, I completely share the concerns expressed by the First Minister in response to questions from the leader of Plaid Cymru, but this could not have come at a worse time for the community, when everybody's in lockdown, when everybody's very tense about the virus as well as the impact that it disproportionately has on people living in very crowded accommodation. I just wondered if it's possible to have a statement from the Deputy Minister on how we can endeavour to reassure the community in the current situation, whilst we await the independent investigation into the issues surrounding this young man's death.

I thank Jenny Rathbone for raising this, this afternoon. I echo absolutely everything that the First Minister was saying regarding Mohamud and the fact that his family is very much in our thoughts today. We do urge that the death is fully investigated, and I think that what Jenny Rathbone has just outlined demonstrates why there is an absolute urgency about that. So, we would ask the services involved to expedite the case and, obviously, then to demonstrate that black lives really do matter.

So, we would be looking to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and those involved in undertaking the postmortem, and all of the other work that needs to go on, to do so as soon as possible to complete their work. But, that important point that Jenny was making about community cohesion and reassurance and so on will be something that the Deputy Minister will be considering how best to respond to.

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and a happy new year to you all.

Could I ask, Trefnydd, for a statement from the environment Minister on any implications for Wales of the decision by the UK Government over the weekend to allow a temporary licence for neonicotinoid use in parts of the UK? Within days of the end of the transition out of the EU, the UK Government has allowed a measure that smacks of that deregulatory approach that we were all fearful of. It's permitting the use, albeit limited at the moment to sugar beet in England, of neonics, when a 2019 report by the World Health Organization said that

'A rapidly growing body of evidence strongly suggests that the existing levels of environmental contamination'—

by neonicotinoids—

'are causing large-scale adverse effects on bees and other beneficial insects'.

So, the concern, Trefnydd, shared by many, is that this is just the start of a deregulatory trend. So, a statement could help clarify how this Senedd, and how the Welsh Government, can protect Wales against threats of weakening of environmental protections imposed from Westminster, and also where the Welsh Government stands on proposals for a Welsh national pesticide action plan to properly translate the sustainable use of pesticides directives into Wales, and to live up, I have to say, to what is a really great aim by the environment Minister, of environmental standards in Wales being the same as, if not better than, other places in the UK. Thank you, Trefnydd.

Thank you. The environment, energy and rural affairs Minister will obviously have heard your concerns this afternoon. I can say that Welsh Ministers are able to consider and approve the granting of emergency authorisations for Wales where there is a need for these products, should there be a perceived need for these products. But, I have to say that that just sets out where the law is, and this is very much a devolved issue.

In this case, obviously, there was no decision for Welsh Ministers to take anyway because this was only an application in relation to England. But the most important thing, really, is to recognise that the Welsh Government has always taken a very cautious and precautionary approach in this area, and I wouldn't imagine that we would change from that particular strong commitment to the approach in future. But, as I say, the Minister will be aware of the concerns that you have raised and will want to have a further discussion, I'm sure.

Thank you very much, Trefnydd.

Item 4 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on the COVID-19 vaccine strategy. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to speak to the statement. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Yesterday, I published our national COVID-19 vaccination plan for Wales. The plan was published on the same day as we commenced daily reporting on the number of vaccines administered in Wales. As of this morning, more than 91,000 people across Wales have now received their first dose of one of the two approved COVID vaccines. This marks significant progress given that we are still just over a month since NHS Wales mobilised the biggest vaccine programme that our country has ever seen.

The plan reflects months of detailed delivery planning, and sets out our national strategy and priorities for the coming months. The plan sets out three key milestones. By mid February, all care home residents and staff, front-line health and social care staff, everyone over 70 and everyone who is extremely clinically vulnerable or the shielded population will have been offered the vaccination. By the spring, vaccination will have been offered to all the other phase 1 priority groups. This is everyone over 50 and everyone who is at risk because they have an underlying health condition. Completing all groups identified as priorities in phase 1 will protect those groups in which we understand that 99 per cent of all avoidable deaths occur. By the autumn, vaccination will have been offered to all other eligible adults in Wales, in line with any guidance issued by the independent expert Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. 

By the autumn, the aim is that 2.5 million people in Wales will have been offered immunisation—all within a matter of months. This is a mammoth task for NHS Wales. It is worth noting that no decisions have yet been made on phase 2 and how to prioritise that phase of the roll-out. The JCVI will however provide advice on the next phase for the four Governments of the United Kingdom to consider.

The milestones in the plan are predicated on sufficient supply of vaccines being available. We have received assurances from the UK Government that supplies will be forthcoming. However, ultimately, this is a matter outside of the Welsh Government’s control.

The plan also includes three markers, which we are aiming to achieve as part of the journey towards achieving milestone 1. These are that, by 18 January, all front-line Welsh ambulance staff will have been offered their first dose of the vaccine. This is part of our aim to vaccinate all front-line health and care staff as soon as possible, given the pressure that our NHS is under and the critical role that our health and care staff are playing in this pandemic. By the end of January, all care home residents and staff will have been offered their first dose of the vaccine. Whilst many care home staff attended our vaccination centres for their first dose of the vaccine in the early weeks of the programme, outreach into care homes was difficult because of the well-advertised challenges associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. They are a priority focus following the introduction of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine last week. And also, by the end of January, our aim is for at least 250 general practices across Wales to be part of the delivery model. The role of primary care is a critical element in our programme: 250 practices coming on stream in a matter of weeks illustrates the opportunities for scale presented by primary care. Scale is one thing, but another key consideration is accessibility, and primary care solutions will ensure that vaccines are offered closer to home for those that need it most. 

The plan lays out our medium-term approach for vaccinating 2.5 million people in Wales. If the last year has taught us anything, it is that things will change. Our plan will be updated at points to reflect these changes. It will also be updated as we move through the milestones and greater clarity emerges on the next steps, particularly with respect to phase 2 of the programme.

However, I do need to remind Members and the watching public that the situation in Wales at the start of 2021 remains very serious. Cases of the virus are very high, and a new, more infectious strain of coronavirus—the Kent strain—has emerged right across the UK, and is circulating in all parts of Wales. This is a race against the virus, and the vaccine programme provides us with great hope. Reaching the finish will be a marathon effort over the coming months ahead. The vaccine is not a quick fix, but I am confident that team NHS Wales will deliver a vaccination programme that we can all be proud of, and it will help to save many lives.

Just as our NHS, local government, the military assistance being provided, and volunteers all have a part to play in delivering the largest vaccination programme in history, we all have a part to play to keep Wales safe: to keep washing our hands regularly, to maintain a good distance with other people not from our household, to wear a face mask where required, and, yes, to make sure that we're providing good ventilation wherever possible. We all have a part to play in helping to keep Wales safe. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon. If I could place on record my sincere thanks to all involved with the vaccination campaign, because the intensity of the effort must have been huge, and will continue to be huge and demanding as we go forward.

Could I ask a series of questions, please, Minister, in relation to the plan that you put forward yesterday and given the statement on today? It is well documented that, regrettably, here in Wales we are behind other parts of the United Kingdom. How will the plan enable us to catch up and overtake the other parts of the United Kingdom in the roll-out of the vaccine, and what lessons have we learnt from the start of the campaign that need to be ironed out? We heard yesterday that two fifths of 80-year-olds in England have been vaccinated. Can you update us today how many over-80s have been vaccinated here in Wales? Because, certainly in my mailbox, I'm getting lots of constituents of that particular age bracket addressing their concerns about not being contacted.

Yesterday, only 5,121 people were vaccinated here in Wales. How will this plan enable the roll-out of the vaccine to speed up the numbers beyond that 5,121 that's being done on a daily basis? And can you confirm if the Welsh immunisation service is now up and running? Training for vaccinators is also critically important and, as we go forward, it is going to be vital that we can bring vaccinators on stream to help in the national effort. Can you confirm what measures you have taken to facilitate the speeding up of training for vaccinators and, indeed, the ability for retired medical professionals to come back into service to help in the national effort?

You refer to the 'second phase' in your statement. I'm assuming that means the second round of vaccines, but I'd be grateful to understand exactly what you mean by the 'second phase'. But I'm taking it to mean the second round of vaccines, and when people will be called up for those vaccines. So, I'm assuming we have to wait for more information to come forward.

This morning, myself and the constituency Member for the Vale of Glamorgan were approached by a Barry care home, where the vaccination team had turned up with little or no PPE to perform the vaccinations within that care home, other than masks. Can you confirm that, under the plan, PPE will be an integral part of the delivery mechanism of the vaccination programme in Wales and that there's a plentiful supply of PPE, so there's no reason why teams should be out in the community delivering the vaccination without PPE?

It's important, also, to understand how many no-shows are actually happening when people are booking themselves in. Have you any numbers that you could provide Members with this afternoon to show the no-show rate at vaccination centres here in Wales? And when will all counties have a vaccination centre? The First Minister was asked on this specifically in First Minister's questions, and I note today that Barry, the largest town in Wales, in the council area of the Vale of Glamorgan, does not have a centre, as does Pembrokeshire not have a centre designated. Are you in a position to tell us when that map might be filled in so that all counties in Wales will have that vaccination centre?

And finally, it has been alluded to, the fact that to speed up the vaccination programme, there is the opportunity for 24/7 vaccination. Is this something that's under active consideration under the plan, Minister, and if it is, are you able to tell us how this might accelerate the speed of vaccination across Wales? Thank you very much.

I thank the Member for his series of questions. Sorry, there's been a problem with my computer. I'll just get rid of this.

So, in terms of the series of questions that he's asked, I think he asked a couple of questions that were essentially the same question in a different way. The plan that I announced yesterday will help us, and it sets out how we're going to speed up the roll-out of the vaccine, and that is, in particular, in relation to the use of both the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but also the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. The significant increase in primary care—and I should say that I had a very constructive meeting with the Royal College of General Practitioners earlier today—will allow us to have a significant reach in terms of access and speed. And that will come alongside not just the first two weeks of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine that we've got—and you'll have heard the First Minister say that we've had a bit over 20,000 for each of the first two weeks—but we're expecting a much bigger increase in vaccine supply for the third week. Getting primary care up and running and ready is really important for that third week where we'll have much greater supply. I've seen some of the concerns that some primary care deliverers have had that they could do more if they had more supply, but we're actually running, with that Oxford-AstraZeneca supply, with the supplies that we've been given. I do think people in all parts of Wales should take some assurance from the fact that we expect a much more significant supply to come into Wales, which will then be delivered in Wales from next week in particular. 

On not just the points about access, I think it's probably worth dealing with your points about vaccination centres. We expect every local authority will eventually have a mass vaccination centre, but I think that perhaps there's confusion between a symbol and the reality of access. Delivering the vaccine through primary care with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will mean much greater ease of access to people. When you've got several hundred general practices working, whether from their own premises, or others that they'll liaise with in conjunction, especially, with local authorities and health boards, that will practically mean that access will be made much easier. I don't think the public will be much bothered about whether there is a triangle on a map in their local authority or whether they can have easy access to a vaccination venue when it's time for them to receive their vaccine. That will be about people going to those venues, whether in a local health centre, whether a hotel or a converted restaurant, a bowls pavilion, or indeed a mass vaccination centre. I think the public want to know, 'When I will get easy and good access?' That includes our delivery, of course, in care homes. 

On your question about the Welsh immunisation service, yes, it's up and running. No, I can't give you the figures on the number of no-shows today, and I don't have a figure to give you about the over-80s, but when we're publishing our weekly dashboard, we will be providing more information on some of the detail that you've asked for. And in terms of the lack of contact, everyone will start to be getting a letter from today onwards, from health boards and local government partners, to set out the approach locally and to give people some of that reassurance that the health service hasn't forgotten them. 

When it comes to training vaccinators, we've worked with people in Health Education and Improvement Wales and across the service to make sure we make it as easy as possible. I've seen some of the concerns in every nation of the UK, including, of course, in England, where people are concerned the process is too bureaucratic, including for retired staff to return to practice to help with the programme. So, we are looking again at what is possible to do. Now, it's entirely possible that I don't need to make a single decision on that. I've been very clear about the policy directive to make this as quick as possible and as easy as possible for trusted staff, whether volunteers or not, to deliver the vaccines. If there is a need for me to make ministerial choices, then I'm more than prepared to do so to speed up the programme. 

When it comes to phase 2, I was actually referring to phase 2 in terms of the priorities list. I think in your question you were really asking me about the second dose, and that's partly about supply. So, expect to see the second dose starting in earnest once we get through to March, when more and more people will be starting to get their second doses come through, and then into April as well, and that is part of what we'll be doing. You will have noticed we're already reporting on how many people have had their first dose and their second dose in the totals that we provide. So, we'll be transparent about the progress we're making. 

I'm not aware of the individual issue about the Barry care home you refer to, but PPE supply is available, it's in plentiful supply. I think Members right across the political spectrum can be very proud of the way that we have procured and supplied PPE here in Wales throughout this pandemic, at good value for money, for all of us, for all taxpayers, and without a single whiff of corruption in the way that that PPE has been supplied and procured. 

When it comes to the 24/7 suggestion, that is something that health boards are looking at. I'm not setting an objective that everyone must have a 24/7 delivery model; I want the best and the quickest delivery model available. If we set an objective that everyone must deliver 24/7, that may not achieve that. I think some health boards will trial it to see if it really does not just expand access but speed of delivery, and I look forward to learning from that. We won't know until that's essentially been tried, but like I said, my directive to the system is to go as fast as possible, as safely as possible, but to do so in a way where we look after our staff and our volunteers who are delivering the vaccines, and make it as easy as possible for the public to get those vaccines as well. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Thank you for the statement. It's good to have the chance to make a few comments and ask four or five questions as well. I'm glad we now have a rough guide to the timetable that the Welsh Government is hoping to follow. I wrote to the Minister on Saturday evening and I asked for targets so we could measure performance against them. But can I just have a little bit more detail, please? You talk of hitting priority groups by spring. When is spring, for example? Are we talking start of spring or end of spring? I think we just need a bit more detail on that.

The Minister has told us that daily vaccination number updates will now be given, but I think we need more than a universal figure regularly. As I asked in that letter, we need a daily update on how many of each type of the vaccine we've received, how many of each type of the vaccine has been distributed to each health board, how many have been administered, and to which priority groups, on health board and local authority areas. I'm pleased to hear others calling for detailed data as well, including the Royal College of Physicians. This is really important in giving focus to your work and in letting the public, as well as us, whose role it is to scrutinise Government—we need to know how we're doing and we need to have confidence that we are on track.

Can I also ask for a tightening of the prioritising within the health and care workforce, after reports that some non-patient-facing staff have been vaccinated? I know that one health board says that's because vaccines have been given to some non-patient-facing staff at the end of the day, to stop any prepared doses having to be thrown away. I've suggested that perhaps we could follow the Israel model, where unused doses could actually be offered to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, at the end of the day. I also pointed out other innovations in Israel that have made them world leaders in vaccination, including seven-day working and drive-through vaccination centres, for example. You say maybe you don't want 24/7; we certainly need the seven.

I'd also like to know what you're doing on the ground to ensure that your own priority list is being followed. I know, for example, that GPs in my own constituency wanted to follow your guidelines, get all care home residents done in one day—all in one go, 500 of them; they are the number one priority—but instead, doses were given out to do some community vaccination of 80-year-olds and over. Don't get me wrong, we need our most senior citizens in the community vaccinated with real speed, but that doesn't actually follow the priority list you have given to us. Perhaps you could comment on that. If we have a priority list, we need a strategy to stick to it, surely.

I'm hearing from other GPs, in other parts of Wales, frustrations at what appears to them to be poor strategy—sending vaccines to each surgery in turn, rather than build up area-wide capability. I quote one who's made public comments in the Hywel Dda area here:

'If you are unlucky enough to be a patient in one of the later allocated surgeries then you have to wait for the vaccine—even if you are in the top priority group....This should be about priority groups not postcodes.'

And finally, there are other priorities—I hope you'd agree with me on that—beyond the top nine. I'm not suggesting deprioritising any of the top nine priority groups, but be it the police or teachers or others in public-facing roles, can you explain how you intend to expand that priority list to those who need protection most, outside the priority groups we now have?

I'll end with a sporting analogy. People have compared how things are going with the roll-out in Wales with other UK nations. It's natural that people do—we've been falling behind. The First Minister has said it's not a race, that it's a marathon not a sprint. Those who take their marathons very seriously pretty much get out of the blocks at sprint pace, and the winners pretty much sprint the whole 26 miles. I'm not talking about a race to beat other nations—that's neither here nor there—but we do need to know that we are racing forward as quickly as we can, for the benefit of the citizens of Wales, and speed is of the essence.

Thank you for your comments and questions. Just to make clear, I've said repeatedly that this is a race against the virus; it's a marathon effort, over many months, and we all want to move as quickly as possible. I don't think I can be any clearer about the approach of the Welsh Government and the direction that our national health service is taking. I really do think we should all be very proud of what our staff are doing—staff who are under pressure. As ever, there are times when criticism of the programme can be taken personally by staff. I appreciate that most Members will say they're not criticising staff, they're criticising me as the Minister, but there is a need to think about the entirely legitimate question that Members will have for me and for health board leadership and the impact that has on our staff who are working under incredible pressures. 

Turning to your first point about spring, spring is the season and it's not a never-ending season. So, you won't have this sort of idea, as David Jones, when he was in the Welsh Office, suggested, that spring and summer actually then went on, at some point, into the autumn and the winter. The reason why we've given spring as an outline timescale is that that really is part of where we are with vaccine supply. If I had absolute certainty of vaccine supply through to the end of April, I could probably give you a much clearer timescale. But some of those are uncertainties. To be fair, I don't think the UK Government are going to be able to give me a cast-iron guarantee on all deliveries up to the end of April right now. We'll give more detail, as we review the plan, about when in the spring we think we'll be able to complete all of the phase 1 priorities. But, just to give some reassurance, by the end of spring is when we expect to do that.

If there is a challenge in vaccine supply, if there is a challenge in delivery, then we're completely upfront about that. You'll recall that we had a COVID outbreak in the Cardiff mass vaccination centre. We lost more than two days of delivery, because the outbreak had to be dealt with, the place had to be cleaned and staff who weren't contacts had to be brought in to continue running the centre. So, it is always possible that events will intervene, it is always possible that supply will intervene, but if there are any of those challenges, we'll be absolutely upfront about what the position is and, crucially, what we are still able to do to make sure the programme carries on. 

In terms of the significant detail that you're asking for in terms of daily figures, I just don't think that is the priority issue for us at this point in time on a daily basis. We'll have weekly detail that will give much greater colour about the delivery of the programme, and I am sure that, once people are used to that weekly set of data, people will be ready to ask questions and to look at what that data provides in detail. If I were to try to make a choice to say that I wanted that level of detail on a daily basis, we'd need to put more time, energy and effort into data entry and to analysis to get it right, and I think we'd end up having to give significant caveats about the information. There's a choice about whether that investment in data entry to meet with the Member's demands for individual daily accounting is the right choice, as opposed to wanting to have a greater focus and priority on the delivery end. But there will be regular information each week that we'll provide to Members and the wider public. 

On your point about prioritisation—I've been asked this question a couple of times—there appears to be a handful of examples that I think health boards have looked at to understand what's going on. I don't have any problem at all with end-of-day doses, to make sure they're not wasted, being offered to health or care staff who are nearby, or, indeed, to the public. I don't think that's the greatest policy question that I need to address as the Minister with the responsibility for vaccine delivery. My concern is that we adhere to the prioritisation list we've got, that we make sure that we don't have leaking of people coming into that group who are, somehow, gaming the system, which is a concern that I've had. Some people have expressed to me that, somehow, they've been able to jump the queue in a way that isn't simply about a handful of doses left at the end of the day that I don't think anyone has any particular concern about. I've checked again with health boards, and my understanding is that they are running through the prioritisation list properly. But it's up to all of us to do the right thing, and if you're offered a link to jump the queue over other people who are undertaking patient-facing work, there's a responsibility on you not to queue jump and put yourself ahead of other people who are putting themselves in harm's way each and every day on our behalf. 

When it comes to seven-day working, we are already seeing lots of working over the weekend, and I do expect that every health board will be undertaking some seven-day working in the vaccine delivery programme. I hope that's helpful, just to be straight about that. General practitioners are working with health boards on priority delivery. They're also working with local government. Every health board and set of local government partners are meeting over the coming days, if they haven't met already, to run through the detail of their programme. They'll be able to go through what they're able to do with primary care to make sure they have appropriate premises, because, as I said, many primary care premises will be fit-for-purpose premises to run a vaccination centre from—a local one. Some of them, though—and we'll all be aware of those general practitioners who are working from, essentially, converted terraced houses—may not be  appropriate in terms of a venue for vaccination. But this is about how we have appropriate venues within local communities that are in much easier reach for people to allow access and an increase in volume and pace. 

When it comes to the question about occupational groups and the priority list, I think I've been very clear about this and I'm happy to reiterate the position. We have from the JCVI an endorsed list of priority groups that will help us to avoid 99 per cent of avoidable mortality—that's phase 1. If we add into that groups who are outside that, then what we will do is we will deprioritise people who are in the most vulnerable group. Whether it's teachers, police officers or any other group, if they come into phase 1, then someone else will be deprioritised who is of greater need. Think about it this way: if you're thirteenth in a queue, and you move up to tenth place, then you can't say, 'I'm not asking for anyone to be deprioritised, I just want to go to tenth.' The people who are ahead of you are now behind you. And the very clear advice we have had is that if we were to do that, for whichever the group of front-line workers it is, then that would mean that we would knowingly be making a choice that would put other people at risk, and that would cause avoidable hospitalisation and mortality.

I'm grateful to the Member for raising the point, and I would reiterate that that's why we have this approach. It's not a finger in the wind list, it really is about protecting the public and about saving lives. I know that the Member understands that and will support that approach; other voices, of course, have taken a different view and have demanded that we take an entirely different approach. I hope Members across the political spectrum understand that's the choice we're making. That's the decision that I have made here in Wales, and I'm not going to make an alternative choice that may keep an individual group of stakeholders happy for a few minutes, but what I'm sure will cause much greater concern and consternation and, frankly, to avoidable mortality.

Thank you. We've had two questions and we're two thirds of the way through the allocated time for the statement, so if I could just gently remind people about the need to get everybody in. I've got quite a few speakers. Alun Davies.

I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have two questions. The first relates to the speed at which those over 70 and with a condition that makes them clinically vulnerable will be offered a vaccine because they will be, clearly, at elevated risk, and it's important that we're able to address those. But also people who share households with people who would not fit into one of those vulnerable groups, but, clearly, the household is a single family unit, and if we are vaccinating one part of that unit, it seems to make sense intuitively to vaccinate the whole of that family unit to provide that protection around a vulnerable individual. 

The second question is about unpaid carers. We all know that unpaid carers are the great army of people who take care of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. What is the place of unpaid carers? I think, if there's a gap in this strategy, it is those people who are taking care of vulnerable adults and children everyday. 

And finally, Minister, members of staff at special schools. I noticed that you were saying that those staff who do provide care—intimate care—and support for children and children who are particularly vulnerable in special schools will be a part of the priority list. And I was wondering where they would be within that, and when they could expect to receive a vaccine. Thank you.

Thank you for the questions.

So, on the speed of the over-70s and the clinically extremely vulnerable, otherwise known as the shielded group of people, we're expecting to have offered all of those their vaccination by the middle of February. That is for them as opposed to the whole household. We have asked, and there have been a number of questions that have gone back to the JCVI around the space, including the question on unpaid carers. They'll continue to look at the evidence of how we can provide the greatest benefit in terms of avoiding harm and mortality. But I understand entirely the case that is made around unpaid carers. It is entirely possible we'll see some revised advice, because that's exactly what happened with special school staff who provide intimate care: we looked again. And they're analogous, essentially, to social care staff who provide intimate care as well. So, they will be prioritised within this first phase group, and so we will be looking to make sure that they receive offers of vaccination. It's a relatively discrete group of staff, and that is because their care is directly analogous with the care that you would expect some front-line health and care workers to provide.

I'll ask again with our chief medical officer about the questions we've gone back to the JCVI about, both questions, but my understanding is that, on unpaid carers, they'll come in in priority groups; they may be in a different priority and will get into the second phase. A number of those carers, if they fit into other categories in the first phase, will be vaccinated according to that category. We know that a number of unpaid carers are actually within the age profiles we're currently dealing with in phase 1, but not all of them will be. So, we're looking at whether there's a way to describe them in a way that people will understand, that the NHS will be able to meet and match, and provide the reassurance that I know that the Member is seeking, and quite rightly is asking on behalf of his constituents.

Thank you for your statement, Minister, and I'd like to take a moment to thank all the scientists and volunteers who've made it possible for us to be discussing this vaccination programme. Yesterday marked one year since the first ever recorded death from COVID-19, and in just 12 months we have approved three vaccines. This is truly remarkable. Minister, how will you be monitoring the effectiveness of the vaccine over time, especially as the period between doses is vastly different from that undertaken during phase 3 trials?

I, too, am concerned about vaccines being wasted due to people not attending, so I am concerned about what plans you have to minimise the wastage. Have you considered just having a list of people, especially teachers or police officers, who could be called in at the end of the day to be vaccinated, ensuring not a single dose of this precious resource goes to waste?

Finally, Minister, how will you ensure that people receiving their second dose will be given the same vaccine as their first dose? We have to ensure that we receive sufficient supplies of each vaccine to guarantee that there will be no mixing of different vaccines. And finally, how will you be monitoring this and what arrangements have you made with the UK Government to secure additional doses of a particular vaccine if required? Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you for the questions. On the second dose being the same as the first in terms of the type of vaccine, that is certainly what our plan is. I saw a rather unhelpful New York Times suggestion we might mix them, and that's never been the approach we've planned to take here in Wales, and at this point in time, we don't have an issue with supply. If there was a need to do that, then, I am more than happy, prepared and capable of going to the UK vaccines Minister to make sure that we get the right amount of supply to make sure the second dose can be delivered. We'll be able to have that information, to not just rapidly, but safely deliver doses of the vaccine through the Welsh immunisation service, again, built from scratch here in Wales by our staff.

On wastage, there is already a call-in approach, so health boards already have a backstop approach to the end of the day if there is unnecessary wastage. Actually, our wastage figures are very good, and I expect that'll be part of the weekly information that we provide. We think we can provide a useful figure on wastage that should show very low levels of wastage, and, again, that's credit to the staff delivering the programme.

In terms of having more to learn and the effectiveness over time of the impact of the vaccines, well, of course, we'll learn much of that as we deploy them. We think, from the evidence that we've been provided, delivering the vaccine to the first phase group of people and once we get through all of them will deal with 99 per cent of avoidable hospitalisations and mortality. That, in itself, will make a significant difference to where we are. We'll then learn more about the longevity of the vaccine and issues about transmission, if you've had the vaccine or not, as we move through time. But, as ever, our knowledge base is not complete. We can be confident that we have vaccines that are effective, are providing a high protection in the first dose, but much more to learn for all of us in the months ahead.

Minister, I'm going to take you back to the phase 2 prioritisation if I may, as you didn't quite answer Andrew R.T.'s question on this. I don't think any of us are suggesting that that the phase 1 roll-out be re-prioritised in any way, but I want to know whether you're personally sympathetic to the argument that school staff should be within the phase 2 prioritisation alongside those for which we've already had some indication. I appreciate what you say about JCVI, but towards the end of that prioritisation list, it seems to be mainly about age. All Governments are saying that schools should be the last to close and first to open, so I'd be grateful to hear from you on that.

And then secondly, quickly, with the question that Alun Davies raised about staff providing intimate care for pupils in special schools, can you tell us whether there was a reason why this wasn't rolled out to mainstream schools where staff also have to administer intimate care to those children who need it? Thank you.

Thank you for the questions. To be fair, I think the question about the phase 2 roll-out was confused at the start, and in terms of the phase 2 roll-out and the question about school staff, of course I'm sympathetic to a range of occupational groups who are working as key workers to keep all of us safe. In particular whilst we're staying at home, we're relying on groups of people to maintain some sense of normality in these extraordinary times. I also have sympathy for people who work in the police and other services, but the priority list is all about how we save lives.

When it comes to phase 2, as I made clear in my statement, we don't yet have advice from the JCVI or our chief medical officers on prioritisation within that second phase. And I will be interested in the evidence on how we can avoid the greatest harm, how we can go as quickly as possible to protect the adult population. But to give you an idea of the sort of differential rate that we are dealing with, the deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, indicated to Ministers across the four nations in a call not that long ago that 43 vaccinations of care home residents would probably save one life, about 100 vaccinations of the over-80s will save one life; to save one life of a teacher who is under 30 without additional vulnerabilities, you need to vaccinate 62,000 people. So, it really does reiterate why we've got prioritisation of the groups we currently have. And when we get into the second phase, we can be confident that we are vaccinating people where there is still a risk, but the risk is much lower. And so that's why we have our priority list approach and that's why we're taking the approach of prioritisation for staff within that. 

May I thank the Minister for his statement and also congratulate and pay tribute to all of those NHS staff who are providing these crucially important services being provided? The situation is grave, as the Minister has said, and I think we need to push the vaccine out to thousands of people as a matter of urgency. The level of the virus remains very high in our communities and we need urgent action to ensure that Wales gets its fair share of the vaccinations, too, because there is a perception out there that Wales is falling behind on vaccination, and people are concerned that the high levels of the virus will bring about new variants again as time progresses and we experience high levels of the virus. It's important that we take urgent action, therefore. Would the Minister agree with me on that?

Yes, thank you, and thank you in particular for, again, mentioning our staff, who are working under incredible pressure to both deliver the vaccination and to protect the public, but also with the ongoing care and treatment for people who are ill from both COVID and non-COVID illness as well. And there is certainly no lack of urgency within our national health service and partner organisations for the task in hand. I understand why there is some concern about 'Is Wales falling behind or not?' I think that, when you look at the progress made over the last week, we went faster than Scotland on a per-head basis within the last week, not as fast as England and Northern Ireland. When we come back to look at this in the middle of February and again by Easter, I think people will be genuinely proud of what Wales will have achieved. I am confident that team Wales really will deliver for all of us in protecting the wider public. 

On your point about the challenges over new variants arising, we have the South African variant and the Kent variant that we know spread much more rapidly, and that's caused a real problem in every part of the UK. So, you'll be aware, as indeed will all other Members who attended the briefing for health and social care committee members today, that there are thousands of variants that have appeared from coronavirus, and they're monitored between the different public health agencies within the United Kingdom. And things only become a variant of concern if they look as if there are difficult or troubling aspects. It's why we are so concerned about the South African variant and the Kent variant. We talk about those and we talk about the Danish mink variant, but we don't talk about the several thousand other variants that have arisen because they've fallen away. So, yes, the greater prevalence, I understand why there may be a concern about will this mean there could be more troubling matters, but actually we have a relatively good surveillance system, and in all the variants of concern the same control measures work: keeping your distance, washing your hands, wearing a face covering where possible, having good ventilation, but crucially avoiding mixing with other households. That is the biggest control measure we can all take, and that will help us to have a very different future with as many of us as possible at the end of this journey together once vaccination provides coverage and protection for the whole population.

Rhianon Passmore. 

Sorry, I don't have a question, Ann Jones. 

Oh, right. Thank you. Mark Isherwood. 

Diolch. Thank you very much for calling me. Further to my question to the Trefnydd earlier, when she suggested I raise these with you now, firstly, given your particular reference to the police, how would you respond to the call by the North Wales Police Federation for policing to be considered for some priority on the COVID-19 vaccination programme. As their secretary said to me in writing yesterday, 'Day in, day out, police officers put their own safety, health and well-being at risk whilst protecting us all. Sadly, in north Wales we've seen many colleagues who have been unwell with COVID-19, some requiring hospital treatment, and many more having to self-isolate.'

And finally, how do you respond to the constituent who wrote to me, calling for autistic adults to be given some priority for the COVID vaccine also, whose brother lives in north Wales, has a learning disability and autism? She referred to the recent research by Public Health England, which found the death rate from COVID is six times higher for people with a learning disability than the general population.

I think, on your final point, that is something that I know the chief medical officer and our chief nurse are particularly concerned about, because the figures are there about a more significant mortality rate for people with a learning disability. Our challenge is whether it's actually the learning disability or whether actually there are other underlying conditions, and, actually, when you think about it, most of our learning-disability adults have a higher number of people who are entitled to an NHS flu jab, and so, actually, they will be covered within the first phase. If you're like me, and you're entitled to an NHS flu jab because of an underlying health condition, not because of your age—although that time, I hope, will come in due course—then that means that you are in a different place in the list to if I were just being dealt with within my age profile. So, there are a range of other categories that I think will catch up and make sure that people under the highest vulnerability do get seen in order with their priority.

And when it comes to protections for the police, we are already trialling lateral flow testing as an additional protection for the police to help people to self-isolate if they're asymptomatic and to protect our workforce within the police. That's a trial that all forces in the whole of Wales are supporting. In terms of the police federation call to be moved up priority lists, I think I've dealt with that extensively both yesterday in the press conference and earlier today. There is a real impact to moving occupational staff groups around, and an impact on preventing the maximum number of deaths.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is the debate on the statement on the draft budget for 2021-22, and I call on the Minister for Finance to make the statement. Rebecca Evans.

I am pleased to make a statement on the draft budget for 2021-22, which was laid on 21 December. Following a decade of austerity, this budget is set against the backdrop of the pandemic, which continues to have a profound impact on all our lives, with economically and socially vulnerable people the hardest hit. We've also faced the end of the EU transition and the ongoing climate emergency, and we faced a disappointing budget settlement from the UK Government in their single-year spending round. Our core revenue budget for day-to-day spending per person in 2021-22 will remain more than 3 per cent lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. Our capital budget is reduced by 5 per cent compared to last year. We've seen broken promises on post-EU funding, leaving us worse off next year, with all devolved administrations left in the dark about their share of the levelling-up fund. While we welcome the £766 million of 2021-22 COVID funding, this is far below the £5 billion allocated to Wales this year, and I'm concerned that eleventh hour UK Government decisions will mean yet again that we learn of further support without prior engagement.

Turning to the major building blocks of our budget, this budget makes full use of our devolved tax powers. From 22 December, I've brought into force tax regulations to increase revenues to a 1 percentage point increase in the higher residential rate of land transaction tax. These regulations also support businesses through increasing by 50 per cent the starting threshold for applying land transaction tax to business property transactions. Most businesses purchasing non-residential properties costing less than £225,000 now won't pay any land transaction tax. Together, these changes will generate around £13 million each year, which, next year, is supporting investment in social housing.

From April 2021, the landfill disposal tax rates will increase in line with inflation to support our aim of reducing waste going to landfill, consistent with UK rates to protect against waste being transferred across the border. In line with our commitment not to increase Welsh rates of income tax during this Senedd term, the rates for 2021-22 will remain unchanged, at 10p in each of the three rates.

Turning to borrowing, our limited capital settlement means that we must maximise the levers at our disposal. We will borrow £150 million in 2021-22—the maximum we can access under the fiscal framework—also drawing down £125 million revenue from the Wales reserve.

Despite these circumstances, we are maximising the impact of our available funding to protect public health and the economy, build a greener future, and drive change for a fairer, more equal Wales. Our commitment to protect health and public services is at the heart of our approach. We're providing an additional £420 million for health and social services, including a £10 million boost to the social care workforce grant and £33 million for mental health services. Taken together with other interventions, this means we are investing more than £42 million extra next year to support people’s mental health and well-being.  

We're providing the best possible settlement for local government in the current financial circumstances, with £176 million to support pressures on schools and social services. We're investing in education, including £20 million of additional funding to support the predicted increase in student enrolment in sixth form and further education. We're increasing investment in affordable housing and social housing to £200 million next year, providing 3,500 additional new homes, as well as an extra £40 million for housing support grants to support our aim of ending homelessness.

The climate emergency remains at the forefront of our plans. Building on the £140 million capital investment package announced last year, we're allocating an extra £97 million to promote decarbonisation and further enhance biodiversity. We will build a greener future, with an extra £40 million for modern education infrastructure, including £5 million for a net-zero schools pilot and a further £5 million to develop Wales’s national forest. We will continue to decarbonise transport, boosting active travel funding by £20 million and providing a total investment of £275 million in rail and metro. A further £20 million will also be dedicated to tackling fuel poverty and supporting renewable energy programmes.

This budget puts our values of fairness and equality into action. Alongside targeted support for the most vulnerable, an additional £13.4 million will support children and young people, including £8.3 million to take forward our flagship curriculum reform. We're investing more to help workers on low incomes upskill and retrain, with a £5.4 million boost to the free and flexible courses offered through personal learning accounts.

While we now have hope in the form of vaccines, much uncertainty remains about the future path and the impact of the ongoing pandemic. We're providing an initial COVID response package of £77 million, to provide certainty where it is needed most. I am proud that this includes Wales continuing to lead the way on free school meals, with an additional £23 million to guarantee meals through the holidays through to Easter 2022. However, given the significant uncertainties ahead, I am retaining the remaining COVID funding, with further potential allocations at final budget particularly focused on support for the NHS and local government.

Despite the most challenging circumstances we have faced in over 20 years of devolution, I am proud that this budget protects, builds and changes to deliver a more prosperous, more equal and greener Wales. Diolch, Llywydd.

Nick Ramsay.

We seem to be having a problem hearing you, Nick Ramsay, although you don't seem to be on mute.

How's that?

That's much better. That's clear. Carry on.

There was me thinking it was all going to run smoothly, with being unmuted, and I've beaten myself.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Minister, for the statement.

I appreciate that this statement has been curtailed today due to time constraints, so I'll be succinct. We are clearly heading through very challenging times as a country, both in terms of public health and financially, as the finance Minister has just alluded to, and challenging times require a budget that makes the most of every Welsh pound. Now, despite the Minister's rather negative view—at one point, anyway—of revenue spending being down on 2010-11, the pandemic has, of course, meant that Welsh Government spending has increased considerably, by 4.6 per cent in cash terms, to over £22 billion.

I do think, in responding to this debate, it would be good to have some clarity from the Minister on this issue about unallocated funding, which has been raised both earlier today and over the last few days. It's less than clear to me why only £77 million of the coming year's funding allocation has yet to be allocated, and there remain concerns that £1 billion of COVID-19 funding from this year has not been spent either—as I said, an issue that was raised earlier. So, if we could hear from the Minister on what's going on there, that would be helpful.

Welsh Conservatives have consistently called for a recovery plan for Wales, not just to see Wales through the current COVID-19 pandemic, but also to deliver the public services that Wales needs in the future, and to see a transformational change in those public services. Now, you know we talk a lot in this Chamber—and, indeed, this virtual Chamber, and the Minister did earlier—about building back better and building back greener, all of which I agree with, but words are, of course, easy. The question is: does this budget provide the much-needed financial revolution and recovery plan for the Welsh economy? And I think the jury is still out on that. 

Turning to the taxation changes in the draft budget, business rates here continue to be some of the highest in the UK, with smaller businesses paying similar proportions to larger businesses. Land transaction tax for non-domestic properties remains unchanged, from what I can gather, whilst the decision to change LTT for houses valued between £180,000 to £210,000 back to the pre-pandemic levels of 3.5 per cent does raise concerns in the housing sector. And I'm sure the Minister, like me, wants to help first-time buyers—we want to help people get into the housing market—so I'd like to hear from you about how this budget will help achieve that.

As the Minister mentioned in her statement, the UK Government has provided the Welsh Government with an extra £5.2 billion to tackle COVID-19 over the last nine months, on top of previous increases. So, I think the spending box has clearly been ticked, but I think what is still lacking to a certain extent is a more creative and targeted approach to deliver a recovery plan for Wales, and I think that must be our long-term objective as a Senedd.

So, we need a budget that will enable Wales to build back better and deliver a brighter future. Yes, tackling climate change must be central to this. Welsh Conservatives would like to see the better transport system that the Minister spoke about, and, of course, the pandemic has shown that we don't need to be so reliant on physical transport infrastructure in the future as we have been in the past, with more people working from home. But that can only work in the medium and long term if Wales's broadband infrastructure is upgraded, particularly in rural areas. 

On the subject of business, while financial support in this budget is welcome, it's vital that we get support to businesses quickly. The hospitality, tourism and leisure sectors have been particularly badly affected by the last year, as we all know, and we certainly don't want to see a repeat of any poor roll-out of the economic relief fund, the phase 3 development grant, where we saw the development grant suspended hours after it was opened, due to the number of applicants.

So, I'd like the Minister to see more innovative methods to support businesses in Wales. Welsh Conservatives want to see investments in our small and medium-sized enterprises, the bedrock of our economy, but it is easy to criticise, isn't it, and I recognise that. What are the alternatives? Well, I could propose a COVID community development programme, business rate-free zones, which could involve three years of free rates, allowing them to invest in their workforce. So, I would urge the Minister to look at all of these opportunities as we go forward to try and build a more creative and dynamic economy as we come out of lockdown.

You've mentioned that you're investing £5 million, Minister, in upskilling and retraining low-income workers, but is it the case that there's been a real-terms cut to some employer education schemes? I'm thinking about the employability and skills budget as well, which seems to have taken a cut. So, isn't that counter-productive? And what about cuts to the economic infrastructure development budget, including real-terms cuts to ICT infrastructure operations? If we want to build back better and build back greener, then we need to make sure that that green infrastructure is there. 

And finally, Llywydd, if I have some time, turning to the WRIT, you have reiterated that the WRIT will remain the same for the rest of this Senedd, so that's reassuring. However, we still don't have a reassurance that that tax will not change after the election. I'm sure that you won't tell us today, because that's all in the pipeline of the Welsh Labour manifesto, I'm sure, but if we could have some guidance on when we can expect to have announcements about future tax changes. This is a new and innovative area for the Welsh Government, and it's important that we get all of this right at the outset, so that we're not playing catch-up later on. But, yes, let's build back greener and build back better.

Thank you for the statement, which comes in very difficult circumstances, of course. If we look at the incredible year we've lived through, it's become more apparent than ever that the restrictions that the UK Treasury places on the Welsh Government and its ability to forward plan is a very serious problem for us here in Wales, and the frustrations around that are the greatest fiscal characteristic of this pandemic without a doubt.

In looking at the draft budget before us, there are a number of things to be welcomed, certainly, in terms of expenditure. If we look at some of the headline figures: the additional £40 million for the housing support grant; £20 million to support active travel, which I support and welcome; over £20 million to respond to demographic pressures on sixth form and further education, which is essential; funding to support changes to the curriculum, to mental health services in the community and in schools. There is significant funding—some £274 million—allocated for the railway and metro system, but it would be a good thing, if I may request it at this early stage, if we were to have some details from the Minister as to how that is to be spent.

Also, we in Plaid Cymru certainly welcome the Government's decision on the land transaction tax. The impact of second homes on our communities is an issue that Plaid Cymru has campaigned on for many years. We will continue to do that. I'm pleased that the Government is willing to have discussions with us, and is having discussions with us, on the range of steps that we'd want to see taken in order to safeguard our housing market beyond the land transaction tax changes. We need urgent action in this area, and I make that appeal once again to the Minister.

Llywydd, if I may turn now to the consequential funding for Wales in order to deal with the pandemic specifically. Before doing that, may I point out that every independent nation can make its own decisions on increasing expenditure in exceptional times such as these? Wales doesn't have that right to increase expenditure on health, for example. We can only access additional funding to deal with the health challenges of the pandemic when England decides to spend more and we get the consequential. That clearly is unacceptable. It's true for all areas of public expenditure too, and it's important that people should understand that, because it's a fundamental argument in favour of independence for Wales, and we have virtually no borrowing powers either, which would provide more flexibility to us.

But in returning to the use of those consequentials that have come to Wales, in the Finance Committee the Minister for Finance explained how £766 million of consequential funding had been provided to Government. Some 10 per cent of that—£77 million—has already been allocated. Now, it's not my job to defend the Government, but I do believe that the Government is right to be very careful in allocating these funds, and should ensure that reserves are maintained for use over the next year. There is a pandemic that is throwing new challenges at us, time and time again, and we do need reserves that we can turn to, particularly given the lack of flexibility available to us in fiscal terms, as I've already mentioned. I know that the Conservatives would argue that all of the funds should be allocated. I don't think that that's sensible at this particular point and perhaps they should persuade their masters in England to give us a better settlement here in Wales. So, yes, the Government is right to hold reserves. But, having said that, let me put my hat on as health spokesperson for one moment.

I am eager to see how the £689 million that remains is to be targeted effectively, particularly when it comes to the vaccination programme. There can be no skimping on that particular programme. But we also need to have clear sight, now, of the post-pandemic period and the rebuilding work that will need to be done. We need to ensure that the green comprehensive regeneration fund, which is ambitious, is put in place. Now, perhaps the Minister can tell us to what extent some of the consequentials could be used to that purpose.

In conclusion, I will refer to something I referred to at the outset, namely the frustrations in terms of the restrictions placed on the Welsh Government by the UK Treasury. The Minister will be highly aware of what I've been calling for since the beginning of our first lockdown, and I will reiterate the point: the UK Government must, at least temporarily, lift the restrictions placed on the Welsh Government's ability to borrow, to draw down funds from reserves and also to use capital funding for day-to-day expenditure. Give us the powers to look after the people of Wales. The Treasury still hasn't responded positively to that request, so can we have an update, please, on where exactly we are in terms of those negotiations? We needed urgent action at the beginning of the pandemic and we will need urgent action and the flexibility to act in that way when we rebuild. The grant is insufficient and the weaknesses of the fiscal settlement have also been highlighted. We need to re-equalise our economy and lift children out of poverty and we need to support our businesses and also, of course, we need to recognise the incomparable contribution of our front-line workers.

This budget achieves three things. Firstly, it provides the necessary funding to deal with the pandemic; secondly, it supports the economic recovery; and thirdly, it supports vital public services. The aim of this draft budget is to protect health and the economy, build a greener future and create a change for a more equal Wales.

The pandemic has speeded up trends that have been occurring over several years: increased homeworking; increased online meetings leading to reduced travel to work and meetings; and increased online retail. The pandemic has turbo-boosted these changes. On the economy, we need to be able to respond to the new world. If people are mainly working from home, then do we need to live within easy transport access to their workplaces? We need to become a place where people relocate to to work. This means we could attract higher paid employment and we could develop the economy into higher paid sectors. Our economy is weak in higher paid areas such as ICT, life sciences and professional services. This is an opportunity to develop these areas of our economy. If people are travelling less, do we need to improve road networks by widening roads and building bypasses? I cannot be the only one to have noticed that the regular traffic warnings of problems on the A470 and M4 have disappeared, except when accidents have occurred, since the pandemic began.

Building back better must mean that working from home continues, possibly with the occasional visit to a central point or regional point. Zoom and Teams for small meetings work, as we've all discovered, and I'm sure that that will continue. We need to make our foundational economy high-paid sectors, not local support sectors and low-paid sectors. If you look at Silicon Valley, we know what their foundational economy is. Remember the most effective economic development tool is educational attainment. Get our young people better qualified and then companies will come without having to give them a bribe.

On health, I welcome the increased expenditure of an extra £420 million for health and social services, which includes a £10 million boost to the social care grant now standing at £50 million. The first priority has to be to eliminate the spread of the virus. Vaccination has to be the way out of this. People will still need, of course, to follow the rules on distance, hand washing and masks. Post-pandemic and post-large-scale vaccination, we need to improve health outcomes. We know that life expectancy, for the first time since the second world war, had started to reduce pre-pandemic. We also know that several medical interventions have not taken place because of the pandemic. We know the deaths due to COVID, we know the number of deaths each year due to different medical conditions, which ones have reduced because there were no interventions? I think that that's a key point. We always think that a medical intervention is bound to be good. An analysis could be done on where the failure to intervene has produced a better health outcome.

I, of course, welcome the £176 million for local government to support schools, social care and the wider local services that we rely on, and the extra £40 million for the housing support grant to end homelessness. Affordable social housing is growing to £200 million next year, stimulating jobs and training, while providing 3,500 additional new homes. On the environment, NRW desperately needs additional resources to carry out the pollution control previously provided by the Environment Agency. It's failing to do what used to be done very effectively by the Environment Agency. Finally, the money that we spend on Commission services is money that we have not got available for services. I agree with the leader of the opposition that we need to reduce the cost of Commission services.

Rhun ap Iorwerth said about having an independent Wales. I have no problem with that. Will he produce, for us all to see, what a draft budget is for an independent Wales if we were having an independent Wales next year? Show us it. And can you please tell your supporters the difference between a budget and a statement of accounts? Some of them are absolutely bemused by the two. Really, this is probably as good as we are going to get with the money that we have got, and I look forward to supporting the budget in its final form at the end of our Finance Committee deliberations. Thank you.

I thank the Minister for outlining the Welsh Government's 2021-22 budget. The fact that we are even able to debate this budget is remarkable, given the challenges of the past 12 months. I know that the Minister has criticised the lack of a three-year spending plan from the UK Government, but you must accept that in these uncertain times it's virtually impossible to plan.

We don't know what will be happening next week, let alone next year or the year after. It makes it difficult to plan for future spending. However, given that this is probably the last budget of this Senedd, the sixth Senedd can, and should, be responsible for spending priorities for future years, as we don't know who the next Welsh Government will be, or who will be responsible for setting that budget for next year.

A budget of some £20 billion or so is not just for allocation for running day-to-day services. It is how we set out strategic policies for improving our nation. Looking beyond the impact of COVID-19, Wales is facing some major challenges, and we have to deal with the impact of climate change. Flooding devastated Welsh communities during 2020, and yet we see a freeze in the budget to develop and implement climate change policy, energy efficiency, green growth and environmental protection. We also see a freeze in flood protection budgets and cuts to the funding for the body responsible for preventing flooding and protecting our environment. So, how can we justify cutting the budget of Natural Resources Wales during a climate emergency? That would be like cutting the health budget during this pandemic. Thankfully, this is not happening, and health continues to represent over half of the Welsh Government's budget. However, as is often the case, how you spend the funds is as important as, if not more important than, the amount.

The legacy of the COVID pandemic will be its devastating impact on the mental health of our citizens. Yet mental health continues to suffer poorly in relation to spending on physical health, and I welcome the inflationary rise to the NHS mental health ring fence. But this is still not nearly enough, and I had hoped that mental health and well-being would have its own MEG, and would not be lumped in with the Welsh language. Main expenditure groups should reflect spending priorities, not ministerial portfolios.

Part of the reason why we need a greater focus on mental health is due to the devastation that coronavirus has had on the economy. We are at risk of entering another great depression. Unless we take urgent action to shore up our economic resilience, we face a bleak future, particularly for our future generations. I welcome the emphasis the Welsh Government has placed upon building back better. We have the opportunity to transform the Welsh economy to meet the climate crisis. However, it is disappointing to see the inclusive growth and futureproofing the Welsh economy budget cut by nearly £2.5 million.

The coronavirus has not only caused great damage to our economy, it has also diverted much-needed funding from futureproofing the Welsh economy towards supporting businesses shuttered as a result of efforts to contain the spread of the virus. However, we cannot afford to be short-sighted. We need to invest in transforming the Welsh economy to cope with the changing climate, greater automation and future pandemics. And while we were unprepared for COVID, we can't be unprepared next time, otherwise we won't have funding for schools, hospitals, teachers and doctors. So, we need to deal with today, but we need to prepare for tomorrow, and I don't believe this budget does enough of either. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this debate. This is the most political budget that I've considered in my time here. We have the combination of not only the pandemic, but the continuing impact of austerity, we have the impact of Brexit, we know that we have the impact of climate change, and I believe we also have a crisis of inequality that means that the needs of this budget need to meet not only Wales as a country, as a whole, as a nation, but also the needs of the people who have suffered the impact of austerity over the last decade as well, and those are very real challenges.

I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has, over many years, and does in this budget as well, protected key local services. We've not privatised the national health service, and we've invested in people and not given contracts to friends and to donors. Those are the values of a Government that is in touch with the values of Wales and the values that we will need to guide us as we debate the way in which we emerge from the shadow of this pandemic, the values that mean that children in Wales are not receiving £5 worth of food for a week or for three days or for two weeks—an appalling situation that disfigures the Government across the border in England.

This Government does, nevertheless, face some real challenges. The first challenge it faces is that in terms of its finance policy. It's the easiest thing in the world to create the dividing lines, as I've just done, between ourselves and the Government in Westminster. But is it enough if we are to rebuild Wales in a different way? Do the finances available to us provide us with the tools that we require in order to do that? For me, I don't believe so. I believe the Tory taxation rates have sought to loosen the burden on the broadest shoulders but have not provided the tools that we require in order to address the crisis of inequality. For me, we need to provide more funding for public services, and we need to provide more funding and more investment in the weakest and the powerless in our society, and that means taking the hard decisions over taxation. This budget does not do that, and I believe that we need to have that hard and difficult and tough conversation, and not just simply standing up and providing shopping lists of pet subjects for funding.

In investing in the public sector and public services, nobody can support the current structure of the public sector in Wales. In the last 12 months we've seen the power of the public sector to be a force for good across Wales. We would not have been able to respond to the pandemic in the way that we have had we had a privatised public sector. But we know that that public sector is not fit for purpose, and we cannot put money into that public sector without also reforming that public sector, and that is something that the Government must and needs to face up to.

In investing in those communities that have been hit hardest by austerity, the post-COVID response package needs to form the basis of an economic recovery plan for the Welsh economy, but also an economic redevelopment plan. I will talk about Blaenau Gwent because it's my own constituency, but the whole of the Heads of the Valleys region has been badly hit by the economic consequences of the poor choices of austerity over many years. We want to see a revival, a renaissance of our towns, our Valleys towns, but also, in other parts of Wales, our market towns, and that will not happen unless we invest in our people and our places and our communities. We need to be able to ensure—and this is one area where I do agree with Mike Hedges—. The impact of the pandemic has taught us a different way of working and a different way of living, and we need to be able to put that into practice. What does that mean for a town like Tredegar or a town like Ebbw Vale or a town like Aberdare or Maesteg? What does it mean for us in the future?

And finally, Presiding Officer, climate. It is the greatest long-term crisis facing us. A crisis of ecology, a crisis of our environment and a crisis of our planet. One of the things that we've seen time and time again is a series of reports telling us that this crisis is accelerating. We are not responding to that crisis with sufficient urgency and sufficient emphasis on the actions that we must take. And that is not simply a matter for Government; it's a matter for all of us. It's a matter for us as a community, as a society, as a country. If we are to allow future generations to inherit a planet that is either liveable or saveable, then we have to take actions today. The actions that are described are simply not adequate enough to do that, and I think the Government recognises that. Therefore, we as a community, as a society, need to ask ourselves the really tough questions about not only this budget but what it seeks to achieve for our own generations, but also for future generations. Thank you very much.

Effective budgeting is about both how much and how well money is spent. Unfortunately, the pandemic has shone a spotlight on the failings of successive Labour Welsh Governments in managing our vital public services. In the year before the pandemic, NHS waiting times doubled in Wales and increased eight times during the pandemic. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported last year that Wales has retained the highest poverty rate of all UK nations throughout devolution since 1999. Further, their 'Poverty in Wales 2020' report two months ago found that Wales still has lower pay for people in every sector than the rest of the UK, and that even before coronavirus, almost a quarter of people in Wales were in poverty, living precarious and insecure lives. As the Bevan Foundation states,

'Poverty was a significant problem in Wales long before the arrival of Covid 19.'

These shocking statistics highlight the failure of successive Labour Welsh Governments over more than two decades to adequately use their resources and devolved responsibilities to tackle long-standing social injustices in Wales. For example, despite spending £0.5 billion on its flagship Communities First policy, it did not reduce the headline rates of poverty in the vast majority of communities and still less in Wales as a whole. Further, the Centre for Towns has found that Wales is the worst-performing area of the UK with regard to economic well-being.

This draft budget provides wholly inadequate support for the third sector and charities in Wales at the forefront of Wales's response to the pandemic, whilst experiencing a dramatic decline in vital income to support services. It states that an additional £700,000 will be provided on top of the £3 million to support the sector in its response to COVID-19 and the £24 million Welsh Government third sector COVID-19 response fund. However, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action estimate that charities in Wales have lost around 24 per cent of their income this year, or £1.2 billion for charities based in Wales. This draft budget therefore needs a greater focus on helping our communities to build back better.

For example, the Bevan Foundation have called on the Welsh Government to use some of the unallocated hundreds of millions from the additional £5.2 billion provided by the UK Conservative Government as part of a multi-year investment strategy to support families in poverty. Responding to the Finance Committee's consultation on the Welsh Government's draft budget proposals, the WCVA stated:

'The voluntary sector must be supported and resourced to fulfil its central role in the recovery from the pandemic'

and that

'co-production must play a key part in the design and delivery of preventative services.'

The WCVA response to the Welsh Government's draft budget proposals goes further, stating: 

'The voluntary sector continues to require greater resource to respond to increasing demand on its services'

'A thriving third sector has a vital role to play in the prevention agenda. The sector has many groups and organisations which have developed to redress specific problems or prevent them worsening.'

It's also able, they said,

'to bring wider benefits to society through community engagement and make communities feel more empowered and connected.' 

And they said:

'Coproduction of services must play a key part in this.'

For the first time in many years, a draft budget is not proposing to cut the housing support grant, which is welcomed, as is additional funding for social housing. However, Welsh Labour have overseen a Welsh affordable housing supply crisis, which did not exist when they first came to power in 1999. And although the sector states that we need 20,000 new social homes over a five-year Senedd term, Labour's 20,000 new affordable homes target includes a range of housing types, not just social homes.

As for local government, despite the impact of COVID-19 on local services and communities in Wales, councils will receive a smaller increase in their settlement than in this financial year. North Wales councils are again losing out, with an average 3.4 per cent increase, compared to 4.17 per cent in south Wales and 5.6 per cent for top-place Newport. And this Labour Government is, once again, refusing a funding floor to protect councils like Wrexham and Ceredigion, expected to cope with increases of just 2.3 per cent and 1.96 per cent respectively. 

I've been repeatedly telling successive Welsh Governments for many years that working with the public and voluntary sectors to design, deliver and fund key early intervention and prevention services will spend money better, deliver more, reduce cost pressure on statutory services, and therefore save more from the Welsh Government's budget too.

I'm not a member of the Finance Committee, so what I'm going to say is very much to do with the impact on my constituents and how I think this budget is going to work. It is a very difficult budget, as Mike Hedges said to us in his very good contribution, as Mike always does. He said, 'This is as good as you're going to get with the money that you've got', and I agree with him entirely. This is hugely difficult. It would be fair to say we've got a disappointing budget settlement with a single-year spending round, and this will have a major impact, not just on Welsh Government, but on local government, on health services, schools and colleges. It is, I have to say, as Mark Isherwood was just saying, on the whole of our crucial third sector and voluntary organisations. But we're having to make do with what we've got here, with a one-year budget settlement, with a core revenue budget for day-to-day spending per person down 3 per cent compared to what it was in 2010-2011, and a capital budget that is down 5 per cent compared with last year. This is not good news.

Unfortunately, we still don't have the clarity that we need and that we deserve and that we were promised on post-EU funding. We don't know the detail on the levelling up fund. Are we going to get the money that we were promised that is so essential for communities like mine, who've benefited from that funding from EU programmes for so many years? We just don't know. And, of course, on top of that, we've got the uncertainty over the pandemic and the Brexit longer term financial planning. So, setting revenue and capital plans for a single year is not ideal, but, as Mike says, this is about as good as we're going to get with the money that we've currently got and the certainty we've got from the UK Government.

Having said that, I think it is a question of setting priorities, and I agree with the headline priorities that have been set. The idea, at this moment, in the middle of a global pandemic and the crisis that we have, is about protecting public health and it is about protecting jobs. On that basis, it is also about using this opportunity to do things differently with that greener future—changes for a fairer, more equal society. That means working closer to home, it means investing in our town centres, it means giving those opportunities so that people don't have to commute long distances, that they can work from either their own homes, with big investment in digital infrastructure, or from regenerated town centres. It is about creating that army of highly skilled, well-paid, high-quality energy efficiency installers in every community, delivering not just warm homes and good local jobs, but helping us tackle our climate crisis, as well as the jobs crisis.

But within this budget, I have to commend the Minister for, with difficult prioritisation, finding money for some really important things, the extra money, the extra £420 million towards health and social services is hugely welcome. I would ask the Minister whether or not she can confirm that the continuing transformation that we set out on a couple of years ago, actually bringing together more seamlessly health and social care so that we get bigger bang for our buck, is still going to be delivered and not lost as we deal with this current pandemic that is still on the cards.

I very much welcome the investment, not only in housing and building new homes, but also the investment in homelessness and in tackling the scourge of rough sleeping as well. We know that, last year, over 4,000 people were brought into temporary accommodation since March. Many of us said how remarkable that was and the policy thrust that helped to deliver that, not just the investment. So, I'd like to ask the Minister what discussions she's had with other Ministers, not just on the impact of this house building that is being done, including on creating and keeping jobs at this important time, but also the sufficiency of this funding to continue that battle and win that battle to end rough sleeping and homelessness.

I do welcome the investment in local government, that extra £176 million will help, without a doubt, not only in schools and social care, but the local services that have been critical in responding to the pandemic, but I also have to say, Llywydd, the 10 years of hollowing out our local authorities and public services through austerity, as well. It will help. But, of course, the critical question for all of us in representing our constituencies: is there any chance that the UK Government will help us to go even further to restore our public services beyond the pandemic, beyond post EU transition to the levels that we want to see, the levels our constituents deserve after they have been hollowed out after 10 years of austerity?

I do welcome as well, Llywydd, the investment in education, the investment not just in education, but also in retraining and reskilling, because we know there is going to be a generation of young people that are uncertain about their school environment, but are uncertain about the jobs environment as well that we currently face with the crisis with employment. So, I would ask the Minister—the investment that is there, the £12 million on catching up on missed education, the £6 million on communities and work plus, and the upskilling and the retraining, is there any chance that we will be able to see more in the years going into the sixth Senedd in future Governments if we have that commitment from UK Government, if we have more money coming into Wales so that we can put more investment into those skills and training for young people who will want to see hope for the future as well?

Finally, can I simply say, Llywydd, because I don't keep an eye on the time, and I'm sure I'm running out of time here—

I'm keeping an eye on the time, and you are running out of time, so if you can bring your conclusions to a close.

Let me simply conclude then with saying I really welcome the additional investment that we're seeing within mental health and well-being this year. It is critical, not simply because of the juncture that we're at with COVID and the impacts that is having on our communities, but because of the legacy issues with mental health and well-being as well, and also the additional spend on COVID-19. Mike said, quite rightly, 'This is about as good as we're going to get with the money we've got', but we can't lose sight of the longer term hope for all of our communities and for our young people that there will be a better future.

The Minister to respond—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you to everybody for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. I'll try and respond to as much as I can during the time I have, but also would remind colleagues that my ministerial colleagues look forward to attending committee and providing that in-depth level of answers to scrutiny as well in the coming days.

I do want to focus my response in large part on the budget for next year, but I have to address these comments about the in-year position before I do so. You will have seen, Llywydd, as others would, these ridiculous claims that the Welsh Government is somehow sitting on £1 billion of funding. Well, we've known for many years that the Tories are good at division, but they clearly have proven themselves to be pretty bad at subtraction, because the budget position that they refer to was that which was the case back at the supplementary budget at the point at which it was laid last year. Since then, Welsh Government has made over £600 million of allocations in respect of our response to the coronavirus pandemic. And, of course, we have had some further consequential funding as a result of spending in England, but I do think that we need, and we owe it to people in Wales, to be honest about the financial position that we are in. If I were sitting on £1 billion, then the Chancellor was sitting on £25 billion. So, the fact that the Conservatives have made such great play of this is very interesting, and the fact that the Prime Minister has reiterated those claims is absolutely to his shame. 

But I will return now to responding to the comments regarding the budget for next year. There was some interest particularly in the COVID funding and why we have only allocated £77 million at this point. Now, colleagues will be aware that we've had £776 million of COVID-related funding. The funding that we have allocated has been really important in terms of those areas where service continuity is so important. So, we've added additional funding, for example, of £10 million to sustain our work in terms of the contact-tracing workforce to ensure that we're able to keep those people working and to ensure that they make their important contribution to our COVID response. We've also kept in place that £4 million for the homelessness prevention grant in relation to COVID as well, because you'll have seen across the border the impact that the Conservatives' decision to turn their back on homeless people over the course of this summer has had, whereas of course, in Wales, the situation is very different and we've maintained our support and will continue to do so into next year as well. You'll also see COVID funding related to the bus industry of £18.6 million, and that's to ensure that they have some financial stability at the start of the next financial year, and £6 million for Communities for Work Plus, and that is important in terms of providing that specialist employment advisory support and the intensive mentoring that people will need at this very difficult time. It is my intention to make some further allocations, potentially in respect of the NHS and local government between the draft budget and the final budget, and as some colleagues have recognised, it's important to retain that flexibility, because even since we published the draft budget the situation has moved on so much and so fast in respect of the latest variant of the virus. So, that kind of flexibility is important. 

I'd like to move on and just mention also that another area where there might be some further funding allocated is in respect of Brexit, now that we've come to the end of the transition period. Again, at the draft budget, I wasn't in a position to make any allocations because we didn't know the way in which things would end in terms of the end of the transition period. We know now, we know about the deal, so I might be in a position to make some further allocations in that respect as well. 

I really do want to mention climate change, because our response to the climate emergency has very much been at the heart of our draft budget. Just to reassure colleagues, there have been no cuts in terms of the core funding for Natural Resources Wales; that's been maintained. And our funding for flooding has actually increased by £3.4 million in respect particularly there of the coastal risk management programme. What you will see is a movement from one main expenditure group to another. So, I think that will provide the clarity that's needed and the confirmation that's needed there. Last year, in our budget, we were really pleased to be able to announce the biggest ever package in terms of support to address the climate emergency and to support biodiversity. The vast majority of that funding has been maintained across into the budget for next year, but in addition, we're allocating nearly £80 million of capital funding and £17 million of revenue to support new interventions. And those include, for example, the work to support the decarbonisation strategic delivery plan for the NHS, which the Carbon Trust is working on and will be completing early this year. So, the budget provides £6 million of additional capital to support the delivery of those energy-efficiency opportunities on the NHS estate.

Some colleagues have mentioned the additional funding of £20 million to support active travel, for example, and that takes our investment to over £50 million in 2021-22. Compare that to where we were at the start of this Senedd, when funding was only in the region of £16 million. I think that this shows not only the way in which this agenda has grown, but the increased and improved support that Welsh Government is giving year on year to active travel.

And I'm really quite excited by the £5 million of capital funding that we've allocated to take forward the delivery of a carbon-zero pilot project to decarbonise schools and colleges in Wales. I think that it is important that we engage with young people on this particular agenda. We all know how passionate many people are about climate change, and the fact that we can support their learning environments to become much more environment friendly, I think, is really important as well.

And again, another big area that hasn't gone away, of course, is poverty, and, if anything, the pandemic has shone an even more stark light on it and we know that the people who were already struggling before the pandemic are the ones who've been hardest hit by it, and that's where you'll see some important allocations within this draft budget to help us continue to address those issues, allocating, for example, £9 million of capital funding to the Valleys taskforce. That's an absolutely key part of our response to support communities in the south Wales Valleys to become more prosperous and resilient, and I think that that commitment is an important allocation.

And also, as I've mentioned previously in my opening remarks, the additional funding for the housing support grant, and we're also providing £20 million additional funding for our Warm Homes Arbed and Warm Homes Nest schemes so that we can maximise the benefit of both our efforts to tackle fuel poverty and also our renewable energy programmes as well. And you'll see additional funding in the budget for advice services, because we know that they will be facing increased pressure as we move forward into the next year as well.

And again, alongside the work that we're doing to ensure that our free school meals go on through the summer, we're not just leaving it at that; we're actually allocating additionally £2.2 million for the school holiday enrichment programme, and that's about providing much more than food to young people through the holidays; it's about providing them with opportunities to develop friendships, to eat healthily, become more active and continue learning, and not fall behind in any way during those summer holidays as well.

So, I hope that I've been able to address some of those key issues, and again, my colleagues and I look forward to getting into detail in more depth in committees, but I would finish by saying that despite the most challenging circumstances that we've ever faced, this budget does deliver on our values and provides some sound foundations for the next administration to build on. Our priorities, as you'll see, remain protecting public health and public services, especially when so many sacrifices have been made this year, but always not losing sight of our ambition to build for a greener future and drive forward the change that we want to see for a fairer and more equal Wales.

So, just in closing, Llywydd, I'm really proud that this budget steps up to the challenges that we face whilst also protecting our ambitions and our values to protect, build and change for a more equal, more prosperous and greener Wales. Diolch.

Thank you, finance Minister.

The next item is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow debates on items 7, 8, and 9. I therefore call on the Minister for health to move the motion.

Vaughan Gething, formally?

Formally.

Thank you. The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? I don't see or hear any objections. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. 

The next proposal is under Standing Order 12.24 to hold a debate on items 6 to 9 together, but with votes taken separately. Therefore, the motions will be grouped for debate. So that proposal is before us. Is there any objection to the proposal? I don't see any objections.

And therefore I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to open the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motions before us to approve these sets of regulations before us today. I'll address each of the regulations in turn, starting with the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) Regulations 2020.

On 14 December, the Government published our updated coronavirus control plan. I was grateful to Members for their contributions to the debate held in relation to the control plan on the next day. These regulations give effect to the framework of alert levels that it contains. The plan sets out four alert levels, which are aligned to the level of risk, and outline the measures needed at each level to control the spread of the virus and to protect people's health. This plan and regulations give people and businesses more clarity about how we move through the alert levels, and should help all of us to plan as we move through this new year. We've drawn on the expertise of the UK Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies, SAGE, and our own technical advisory group to identify interventions that work and what we've learned from the pandemic. Of course, we should all reflect on the fact that we're still learning throughout this pandemic, even after the last 10 months.

Our technical advisory group here in Wales has made it very clear that a national approach to restrictions is much more likely to be understood by the wider public and, crucially, to be effective. But if there is clear evidence of a sustained variation between parts of Wales, the regulations allow for the alert levels to be applied regionally.

The second set of regulations considered today are an amendment to those regulations, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. Members will be aware that, on 19 December, new and worrying information about the new and highly infectious Kent variant strain of COVID was discussed by the First Minister, together with the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland and Michael Gove for the UK Government. In response here in Wales we took immediate action to introduce the alert level 4 restrictions, the highest of our level of restrictions, that night. These restrictions were originally scheduled to come into force over the Christmas period. This meant that non-essential retail, close-contact services, gyms, leisure centres, hospitality and accommodation were closed, and the stay-at-home restrictions came into effect.

Now, I recognise that these national measures were the subject of significant criticism from some quarters. Sadly, a brief period of time has reinforced why our national approach was the right approach, especially so for north Wales, where we introduced protection at the right time, or the position we now see across the north of our country would undoubtedly have been significantly worse. In addition, we made further changes to the Christmas arrangements, which allowed two households to come together to form a Christmas bubble, and they applied to Christmas Day only.

A further set of amendment regulations was made on 22 December—the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. This largely technical amendment sought to ensure that selling alcohol after 10 p.m. remains an offence.

Finally, the Welsh Government has made further changes to the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Wales) Regulations 2020. A new variant of COVID-19 has been detected in South Africa that is different to the UK variant of concern, the Kent variant, but may share similar properties in terms of higher transmissibility. That certainly appears to be the case. Since 24 December, all travellers arriving into Wales from South Africa are now required to isolate for 10 days and will only be able to leave isolation in very limited circumstances, and there are no sectoral exemptions. Although most visitors from South Africa arrive via England, further restrictions mean that passenger planes and ships directly from South Africa and accompanied freight are no longer able to land or dock at Welsh ports.

As I've set out earlier today, Wales is undertaking a large-scale vaccination process as quickly as possible. This is, however, a marathon effort of unprecedented scale. The situation remains very serious in every part of our country. I'm fully aware of the significant challenges that alert level 4 restrictions place on people and businesses across Wales. As the review of those restrictions last week identified, it is still far too soon to move to a lower alert level. We must remain in alert level 4 to protect our NHS and to save lives. I urge Members to support these regulations, which are essential if we are all to continue playing our part to keep Wales safe. Thank you, Llywydd. 

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

Thank you, Dirprwy Llywydd, and I make this report again in respect of items 6, 7, 8 and 9. The coronavirus restrictions No. 5 regulations, as the Minister has reported, impose a number of restrictions and requirements in response to the risk to the public health arising from coronavirus, restrictions that will now be familiar to Members. Since being made, the No. 5 regulations have already been amended and the relevant amending regulations also feature in today's debate. Members will know that, originally, the No. 5 regulations were due to come into effect, as has been said, on 21 December, but, by virtue of the amending regulations, they, in fact, came into force on 20 December 2020, for the reasons that the Member has outlined. And Members will also know that they will expire at the end of the day on 31 March.

Now, as the Minister has said, the No. 5 regulations apply four alert levels, and differing restrictions apply within each alert level. Our reports on the No. 5 regulations and the two sets of amending regulations raise familiar merit points, namely the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights, which obviously the committee considers very carefully; the issue of there being no formal consultation, but, again, for reasons that have been previously outlined; and that a regulatory impact assessment has not been carried out—again, for similar reasons. We also noted that the scientific evidence has been drawn on to assess public health risks in the making of the regulations. Furthermore, we have also highlighted the fact that both sets of amending regulations came into force before being laid before the Senedd. Now, on the first set of regulations amending the No. 5 regulations, we identified a drafting error. As the Welsh Government has noted in its response, received yesterday, the relevant provisions of the No. 5 regulations are now spent, having been revoked by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2021, which were made on 8 January 2021.

If I turn now to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, South Africa) (Wales) Regulations 2020, which amend both the international travel regulations under the No. 5 regulations, they make changes necessitated by the emerging health risks reported from South Africa that the Minister has reported on with regard to the new strain of coronavirus and, again, as he's reported, the high levels of transmissibility. We identified four technical reporting points relating to drafting errors and inconsistencies between the English and Welsh texts. The Welsh Government has noted these and will make corrections as necessary. Four merits points on these regulations again highlight the common and familiar issues that we consider: the interference with human rights, the absence of formal consultation, and the lack of a regulatory impact assessment, for, again, the reasons that have been identified, which we are familiar with. And again, in addition, these regulations came into force before they were laid. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. Andrew R.T. Davies. 

[Inaudible.]—I'll deal with them in individual sequence. The Welsh Conservatives will be voting in support of the regulations as tabled this afternoon. On agenda item 6, and in particular trying to elicit from you some information as to how we might get into a position where these restrictions might slowly start to be alleviated, have you gateways that you as Ministers and as a Government can put out in the public today to show what progress we need to be making to move down the tier system that agenda item 6 covers? I appreciate, as we look at hospital numbers and case numbers, that looks a pretty long way away at the moment, but I think it's important that people understand, given, in previous restrictions that were put in place, there was a clear road map out of those restrictions. At the moment, that doesn't seem evident. 

Can you also comment on reports today—? The vaccine plan that you tabled is an important way of assisting in suppressing the virus in our communities across the whole of Wales, but I noticed today that there are reports circulating of vaccine passports and trials being undertaken by Governments in other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the vaccine passports form part of any package that will be required to unpick some of these restrictions and lower the levels of alertness around Wales, and have you as a Government got a position on vaccine passports? And, importantly, on the mutation that is going on at the moment with the virus, we have seen how this has impacted on numbers across the whole of Wales and indeed across the whole of the United Kingdom. Can you confirm today that all labs that undertake testing for coronavirus are testing for the mutation, so that we can keep track of how the mutation is spreading across Wales, and, indeed, protection against future mutations of the virus, in lab testing?

Agenda item 7 is around the arrangements around Christmas Day, and obviously, as we all understand, Christmas Day has been and gone. I think people looking in on our proceedings will find it slightly bizarre that we're voting on these regulations now, but it is what it is. Agenda item 8 around alcohol restrictions—we will be supporting this measure. And agenda item 9 is in relation to the South Africa travel restrictions. Again, we will be supporting the restrictions that were placed on the South African inbound travel. Have you any information that could be provided to the Parliament today in relation to maybe other mutations in other countries that might require similar travel restrictions, because obviously I presume there's sharing of information, and, in particular, when the Danish outbreak happened, there was close dialogue, you indicated to Parliament, between your officials and the Government in Denmark? Are there concerns flashing on the dashboard at the moment in other countries where we can see mutations of the virus occurring that might involve bringing forward greater restrictions on travel coming in from those countries? Thank you, Minister.

I want to keep my comments relatively brief. I will refer briefly to agenda items 7, 8 and 9. First of all, item 7 is the regulations on the change of the date of introduction of restrictions in December. The second relates to the sale of alcohol after 10 p.m., and a change to regulations in terms of travel from South Africa is covered in item 9. I have no comments to make on those, if truth be told. They are sensible and we will be supporting them.

We will also be supporting the main regulations before us today under item 6, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) Regulations 2020. These are the regulations, as the explanatory memorandum notes, that note the restrictions and what applies under the four tiers, namely the introduction of that new four-tier system, and the context we have is the current restrictions, which are level 4 restrictions, which we currently have in place for the whole of Wales.

I am entirely comfortable, given where we are today, that that is quite right and that we should all be living under the level 4 restrictions. We are all very vulnerable at the moment. That is most apparent in the east of Wales, in the south-east and the north-east, but every part of Wales is experiencing a level of cases where strict action is required. And I would make the point here again to the Minister that this isn't a north/south pattern that the pandemic has followed; it's an east/west pattern. Referring, time and time again, to 'north Wales' as if it were one homogenous region—that's not particularly useful. The challenges in the north-east and the north-west can be markedly different in terms of this pandemic, as is the case in the south-west and the south-east. But, as I say, the risks that we're currently facing are being experienced across Wales at the moment, despite ongoing differences in levels.

But I will urge the Government, once again, when it comes time, hopefully, to be able to start considering relaxing restrictions, to use the powers within these regulations, and, as the First Minister himself as said that he's willing to do, to operate by varying the support that needs to be provided to different areas. The regulations are quite right as they are. We will vote in favour of them. It's how they're implemented that's important here, and, as we look to the future, hopefully to better days in terms of case numbers, we need to ensure that we can introduce greater freedoms for people for their own physical and mental well-being, and for businesses as soon as possible. And perhaps we won't be able to do that for everyone at the moment; perhaps the east may be facing a more grave situation in a month or two—who knows?

May I also ask, given that the regulations relate to restrictions on all kinds of activities, about the outdoors and outdoor activities? There are substantial restrictions on people's ability to participate in outdoor activities, which are relatively safe. There are people contacting me saying, 'Well, why can't we play golf?', 'Why can't we go on a brief journey in order to undertake outdoor exercise for well-being?' And in other parts of the UK, people from different households can spend time exercising together in the open air, and it's important to make that point, and again that's very good in terms of individual well-being. So, even given these very challenging circumstances in terms of the number of cases that we currently have, to what extent is the Government still looking carefully at what else could be allowed in a way that is responsible and safe? I'm not asking for great relaxations here given our situation, but you should be looking constantly at whether there is more that could be done in order to provide people with greater opportunities to look after their own well-being and so on. Thank you very much.

I have no Members who've indicated for an intervention, therefore, I call the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for his report on both the merits and technical scrutiny. It is always an important function to make sure that the law is as consistent as possible, and even where we don't agree, it is certainly, I think, a continually important function to make sure that the law is in good shape.

Turning to the Conservative health spokesperson, I'm pleased to have support for the regulations indicated, and the challenge about how we use the latitudes that the alert levels give us about the path to potentially stepping down in the future, well, there are some metrics within the alert levels in the plan that I know the Member will have looked at. We also, though, have to have a broader understanding of the system pressures that we face and of the movement that we see. That's why we are looking for a sustained improvement before looking to come out of alert level 4, either across the whole country or potentially, as I and the First Minister have indicated, within regions of the country as well.

Now, that can't be neatly described on a piece of paper in the way that some of the metrics in the plan can be. But we do know that, at present, it's unfortunately the case that our critical care units are operating at over 150 per cent across Wales. We know that we have a record number of people occupying hospital beds at this point in time. We know that we have field hospitals open in different parts of Wales. We know that we have a real challenge in getting recovering patients out of acute beds, and that is partly because, in significant part, we've got very real pressure in our social care system. So, without seeing a recovery in terms of staff in social care and our ability to put people into different parts of the system where they can be cared for appropriately, we have that whole-system pressure that colleagues within primary care will see in their day-to-day activity as well. And that is less easy to describe in the sort of metrics that we already have in the plan.

But, as we're going through each of the regular reviews that we undertake—I think this goes into some of the points that Rhun ap Iorwerth was making—we have regular advice from our chief medical officer, our scientific adviser and the technical advisory group, and I think it's a good thing that we're used to a regular pattern now of publishing the advice of the chief medical officer, alongside any choices that Ministers make in terms of the restrictions that are in place. So, I hope that will give the Member and others who are watching some assurance. It isn't simply a matter of Ministers choosing on a whim to do things; it is informed by direct evidence. It's also informed by the best available public health advice that we have and we'll continue to be transparent about that.

On the Member's point about vaccine passports, this is a matter of media briefing rather than policy. There's been no serious discussion at all. In fact, I haven't had a single discussion with health Ministers in other parts of the UK about vaccine passports. These matters are often floated before there is a serious discussion and it's not a serious matter for now. There may be something akin to that, particularly for international travel. I can foresee a time in the future when it's not just the policy choices that are being made across the UK to have pre-travel tests undertaken, but the potential for vaccination in the way that some of us are used to needing a vaccine stamp to travel to other parts of the world is part of what we're used to.

On your question, again, about lighthouse labs testing for the Kent variant within the UK, these are lighthouse labs that test for it. There are only a handful of those within the UK. Public Health Wales, as I said, is working with colleagues in England to have a more representative sample from south Wales sent through. We have a good understanding in north Wales.

As I'm sure the Member will have seen in the technical advisory group report that was published alongside our schools choices, we have provided a map of where the new variant has already seeded and is understood in Wales. The map in north Wales is more comprehensive than the one in the south, but the overall picture shows that it is seeded everywhere. However, all of the new variants, including the variants of concern, still show up positive in the positive coronavirus testing. So, people can have the assurance that, if they get a positive test, even if it is a new variant of concern, they will get an accurate positive test.

I know that the Member was unable to attend the committee briefing today with myself, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser on health. But, again, we have had the indication that there are thousands of variations of coronavirus that are already identified. That, in many ways, isn't really an issue. As the deputy chief medical officer said in public, every virus mutates and changes and has variations.

The issue is where there are variations of concern and the reasons for that. Just as we did with the Danish mink variation, just as we have with the South African variation, just as we have with the Kent variant, these are variants of concern because there are particular properties. Prompt action in Denmark appears to have avoided the harm that the Danish mink variation could have caused in retransmission into humans, where it might have affected the efficacy of vaccines. That's a good thing. We all work together, not just within the UK but across Europe, to share information.

When it comes to Kent and the South African variants, the higher transmissibility is driving, certainly, the Kent variant spreading across the UK. There are much higher rates of hospitalisation in every UK nation, which is why Chris Whitty said at the start of this week that these are the most difficult days for the national health service within the course of the pandemic. As variants of concern are identified, information is shared promptly between officials and between chief medical officers. Indeed, there are proper and grown-up conversations between the health Ministers of all four parts of the UK, regardless of our differing political parties.

I'm pleased to have the broad support of Rhun ap Iorwerth and Plaid Cymru for the regulations as well. Again, the regional approach for the future: it really is for the future. We are not there yet, and it will take significant improvement to have a realistic prospect of moving out of level 4 at the end of this month. But, we take on board the point that, if there is that significant regional variation that is sustained, then we may be able to make different choices within different parts of Wales.

I recognise the points that he has made about whether exercise should be permitted if people are driving or travelling a bit further afield for exercise. But, just to reiterate, to be fair, the Member has attended all—or nearly all—of the briefings that we have provided with myself and the CMO to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee members. In those, there's the opportunity to ask questions about where we are and about the advice that is given about the nature of the public health threat, and about whether there is something to be achieved in changing parts of the regulations or the regime that we have had.

The reason that we have a 'stay at home' requirement—not guidance, but a requirement at present—is because of the level of seriousness that we have. That will remain the case for the foreseeable future, and as we are able to make different choices—. You will recall that, coming out of the spring lockdown, we were able to make some different choices about people's ability to move from 'stay at home' to 'stay local'. We are not in a position to move to 'stay local' at this point in time, so it's really important that there is a very clear message from the Government and, indeed, all Members from all political backgrounds, that the rules require us to stay at home.

Exercise should start and end at your home whether you are on foot or on a bicycle. So, that's the requirement. When we have different choices available to us, I would be keen for us to be able to do so, because that would signal that we are in a different position again with the course of the pandemic and the protection that we can provide, with a different set of ways to all play our part in helping to keep Wales safe. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see an objection. Therefore, we will defer voting on that item until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see an objection. Therefore, we defer voting under that item until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under agenda item 8. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see an objection. Therefore, we will defer until voting time.

Then the proposal is to agree the motion under item 9. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion under item 9 is agreed.

We now move on to item 10 on our agenda, which is the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Scheme) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I welcome the opportunity to bring forward these amending regulations today. The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Scheme) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 amend the 2013 council tax reduction scheme regulations. The scheme provides direct help to households across Wales by reducing their council tax bills. The UK Government abolished council tax benefit on 31 March 2013 and passed responsibility for developing new arrangements to the Welsh Government. The UK Government's decision was accompanied by a 10 per cent cut to the funding for the scheme.

The Welsh Government responded by meeting the funding gap to maintain entitlements to support in 2013, and we have continued to maintain entitlements each year since. The scheme currently supports around 280,000 of the poorest households in Wales. As the pandemic continues to place increased pressures and hardships on the people of Wales, it is even more important that we ensure that the systems that are in place to support them are as fair as they can be and are kept up to date.

Amending legislation is needed each year to ensure that the figures used to calculate each household's entitlement to a reduction are increased to take account of rises in the cost of living. The 2021 regulations make these uprating adjustments and maintain existing entitlements to support. The financial figures for 2021-22 relating to working-age people, disabled people and carers are increased in line with the consumer price index—0.5 per cent. Figures relating to pensioner households continue to be increased in line with the UK Government's standard minimum guarantee and mirror the uprating of housing benefit.

I've also taken the opportunity to include minor technical changes and to make additional amendments to reflect other changes to related benefits. For example, I'm amending the regulations to ensure that people in receipt of Windrush compensation payments will have those payments disregarded so that they do not alter a person's entitlement to support through the council tax reduction scheme.

These regulations maintain entitlements to reductions in council tax bills for households in Wales. As a result of this scheme, the most hard-pressed households receiving council tax reduction scheme will continue to pay no council tax in 2021-22. I ask the Members to approve these regulations today.

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

We move to a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow item 11 to be debated, and I call on the Counsel General and the Minister for European Transition to move that motion. Jeremy Miles.

Formally.

Thank you. The proposal is to suspend the Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No, I don't see an objection. 

Therefore, we will now move to debate item 11, which is the legislative consent motion on the Trade Bill, and I call on the Counsel General and the Minister for European Transition to move that motion. Jeremy Miles.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion. I'm pleased to introduce this legislative consent motion and the supplementary legislative consent motion related to the UK Government's Trade Bill.

This version of the Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons in March 2020 and has a lot of similarity to the previous version of the Bill that fell in the last Parliament—the Trade Bill in 2017-19. The 2019-20 Bill recently completed Report Stage in the House of Lords on 6 January, and the current version of the Bill contains amendments made during the Lords' as well as the Commons' stages.

Following its introduction back in December 2017, the 2017-19 version of the Bill underwent many rounds of scrutiny. The Senedd initially approved the legislative consent motion on 12 March 2019 and subsequently on 21 May 2019, in light of two supplementary memoranda. I'm back before you today in relation to the current 2019-2021 version, which contains some provisions that were in the original Bill, along with some additional amendments that require further consideration by the Senedd.

Eluned Morgan, on behalf of the Welsh Government, laid an LCM on 2 April 2020 in relation to the following provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. Clause 1 confers powers on UK Ministers in devolved authorities, including Welsh Ministers, to implement the provisions of the agreement on Government procurement, to reflect the fact that the UK is now an independent party to this WTO agreement, following the end of the transition period. Clause 2 confers powers on the Welsh Ministers and devolved authorities, including Welsh Ministers specifically, to implement international trade agreements with third countries, corresponding to certain kinds of existing EU third country agreements. Clause 3 is now contained in clause 11 of the Bill; this clause provides for different types of provision that could be made in regulations made under clauses 1 and 2.

Clause 11 also gives effect to Schedules 1 to 3. Schedule 1 places restrictions on the exercise of the Welsh Ministers' powers. Schedule 2 makes provision for the procedure that is to apply to regulations made under clauses 1 and 2. Schedule 3 contains exceptions to restrictions in the devolution settlement. Consent was also sought for clause 4, which is now contained in clause 12 of the Bill. This provision outlines how certain terms within Part 1 of the Bill should be interpreted. As this provision needs to be considered alongside clauses 1, 2 and 11, the Government considers that consent is required for this provision. These are all related to the April 2020 LCM.

I have laid two supplementary legislative consent memoranda. The first was on 4 November 2020 in respect of the following provisions that relate to the collection and sharing of trade information and that were contained in Part 3 of the Bill. These are now contained in Part 4 of the current version. Clause 21 allows specified public authorities, including Welsh ports and health authorities, to disclose information to a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of facilitating the exercise of a Minister of the Crown's functions relating to trade. Clause 22 makes it a criminal offence for a person to disclose identifiable personal information in breach of the requirements in clause 21.

A further supplementary memorandum was laid on 11 January in respect of Part 3 of the Bill, as it was amended at Lords Report Stage. Clauses 15 to 18 and Schedule 6 provide for the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission as a statutory body, whose role is to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State on relevant provisions in new free trade agreements. In addition, a number of non-Government amendments have been passed at House of Lords Report Stage that may be overturned when the Bill returns to the House of Commons for consideration of amendments.

The Senedd's consent is also being sought for these provisions; the Welsh Government is content with each of the amendments and would prefer the Bill to include these clauses in its final form, but recommends consent to the Bill whether or not they are retained: clause 3, which relates to parliamentary approval; clause 6 in relation to health, care or publicly funded data processing services; and clause 8 in relation to standards. These, between them, are the provisions for which consent is sought.

The Senedd has previously consented to substantially similar provisions contained in clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill in the original version of it, which was debated in the Senedd on 21 March and 12 May 2019. There are, however, some key differences. For example, the power to implement the Government procurement agreement in clause 1 can now be used to make provision in consequence of a dispute. This seems a sensible improvement. Some of the restrictions placed on devolved authorities have been removed, meaning that the Welsh Ministers will still have the power to amend retained EU law in circumstances where it falls within the scope of any freezer regulations, which could be made by UK Ministers under section 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and which would otherwise restrict the Welsh Ministers' competence to amend this category of legislation. That's also an improvement to the original Bill. 

I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the Bill. A number of legislative consent memoranda have obviously been laid against the different versions of this Bill, and I am grateful to the committees for their consideration. I recognise there are significant challenges in co-ordinating both the Senedd and UK Parliament timetables, and whilst my predecessor and I have made every effort to provide updates to Members as the Bill has progressed in its different forms through Parliament, I readily acknowledge the challenge. The Bill's timetable has been difficult, with several UK Government amendments requiring consideration at very short notice, and delays occurring, unfortunately, at almost every stage.

Whilst some of the recommendations put forward by the scrutiny committees have not been accepted, I want to reassure the Senedd that I have acted to address recommendations where it has been possible to do that. One of the key concerns has been our willingness to accept despatch-box commitments. We have had some limited success in securing a change to the face of the Bill in relation to the data sharing provisions in clause 8, which now expressly includes the devolved authorities as one of the bodies that the relevant trade-related data can be shared with by HMRC. But, in light of the difficulty overall in achieving changes to the face of the Bill, we have looked at other options to secure assurances from the United Kingdom Government. Despatch-box commitments are, admittedly, an imperfect, but, nevertheless, legitimate technique used by Ministers in all devolved Governments to hold the UK Government to account, and this position has, of course, as Members will be aware, been accepted previously by the Senedd. I commend the motion to the Senedd.

Can I now call the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, David Rees? David Rees, are you there? No. We seem to have lost the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. Therefore, can I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Certainly, this Trade Bill has been a long process rather than an event, it's fair to say. We reported in July 2020 on the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum, making nine recommendations, and then, last month, reported on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum, making a further three recommendations. This followed three reports we prepared on the previous Trade Bill, which fell before the 2019 UK general election. We haven't been able to give consideration to the further supplementary LCM that was laid yesterday by the Government for obvious reasons. In our reports, we have expressed significant concerns, not only with the Bills, but also with the Welsh Government's approach to engaging with the UK Government on matters of concern, and these are matters we have raised during evidence sessions with the Counsel General, as he's aware.

For example, clause 1 concerns broad regulation-making powers for the Welsh Ministers and UK Ministers to implement the agreement on Government procurement. We were therefore surprised to be told that the Welsh Government had not had specific conversations with UK Ministers, given that the regulation-making power can be exercised by UK Ministers alone, without a legislative requirement to consult with Welsh Ministers or the Senedd. We expect the Welsh Ministers to ensure that Welsh democracy is safeguarded by ensuring that powers provided in a UK Bill are not excessive. This is one of the functions of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. We made three recommendations about clause 1, seeking a review of the procedure to be applied and a reduction in the breadth of the power. These recommendations have not been taken on board.

Members will know that clause 2 of the Bill concerns international trade agreements, as the Counsel General has outlined. These are agreements that could encompass a wide range of policy areas falling within the legislative consent of the Senedd, including agriculture and fisheries. Clause 2(6)(a) of the Bill allows UK Ministers to make regulations that amend the Government of Wales Act 2006. We expressed alarm that the Welsh Government had not made any representation to the UK Government about this power. We therefore recommended in our first report that the Minister should seek an amendment to the Bill to the effect that it cannot be used by UK Ministers to make regulations that amend the Government of Wales Act 2006. In our second report, we said that we were unclear why the Welsh Government did not raise this matter directly with the UK Ministers, and we requested that the UK Government would bring forward the necessary amendment. We recommended that we receive an explanation for this before today's debate, and we were disappointed that this has not happened.

The constitutional principle that the legislative competence of the Senedd should not be modified by regulations made by UK Ministers we think is a very important one that has to be defended by the Welsh Government. Clause 2(7) of the Bill would enable regulations made by UK Ministers to extend the time during which both UK and the Welsh Ministers may make clause 2 regulations for a further period of up to five years without needing to consult the Welsh Ministers or seek the consent of the Senedd. We recommended also that the Bill should be amended such that the consent of the Senedd be obtained before the ability of the Welsh Ministers to exercise executive powers in Wales if extended, and the committee felt that it was regrettable that the Welsh Government had rejected our recommendation.

In its place, the Welsh Government is relying on, as the Counsel General has recently outlined, a despatch-box commitment that it will be consulted prior to having its executive powers extended. I welcome the concessions where they have been obtained, but, as the Counsel General will know, and it's a point we've made very consistently, this position we regard as unsatisfactory, as is the lack of timely update on the status of this despatch-box commitment. I think the point we make about the despatch-box commitments, of course, is that we understand the convention and their use from time to time; it is the overall, cumulative affect of them being made on this and on other legislation that is something that causes us significant concern.

That brings me to some general observations as regards clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill and the Welsh Government's reliance on despatch-box commitments made by the UK Government about how powers will be exercised by UK Ministers. We are not content with the Welsh Government's approach of addressing the inadequacies of clauses 1 and 2 by seeking these non-legislative commitments from the UK Government. In our view, we think it's a high-risk approach and one that ultimately and cumulatively is flawed. The Bill, once enacted, will have significant and potentially long-term implications for key sectors in Wales, including agriculture, fisheries, health and manufacturing. Now, we acknowledge that the negotiation of UK-wide trade agreements remains a power reserved to the UK Government, however, the Welsh Government will be responsible for implementing those trade agreements in devolved areas in Wales, and we do not believe that non-binding inter-governmental agreements are an effective way to safeguard Welsh interests.

In terms of the EU-UK future relationship, the Counsel General in his written statement on 18 June 2020 said the Welsh Government remains

'deeply frustrated by the lack of any meaningful engagement.'

If the Welsh Government has such concerns about the quality of engagement with the UK Government and it believes that the UK Government's recent actions failed to respect the position of the devolved Governments, then we find it hard to understand why it is willing to continue entering into non-binding inter-governmental agreements with the same Government—

Can I ask you to wind up, please?

I am winding up now. Members will be familiar with these concerns of ours. So, in closing, if I could just say how disappointing it was to hear a Welsh Government Minister say that in rejecting one of our recommendations it was extremely unlikely that the UK Government would take these seriously into consideration. We don't think this is an appropriate approach.

I see we have the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee back with us, so I'll call David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I do apologise, my Wi-Fi dropped out just at the crucial time as it happened. I'll therefore keep my comments as brief as possible. In a sense, the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has reflected many of the views we have, and my brief remarks will focus on the prism through which it forces us to consider the question of legislative consent.

Before I move on, I understand the position the Minister has found himself in with the LCM originally being laid back in April, a supplementary in November and the second supplementary only yesterday, and that was based upon the fact that amendments were made only last Wednesday. It does really highlight that significant provisions for the Trade and Agriculture Commission were only brought to our attention by the means of that supplementary legislative consent motion laid yesterday, and it is, therefore, important that we have opportunities of actually scrutinising the Bill properly.

I think this Bill has highlighted that the legislative consent process does not allow us the sort of interaction with legislation that we are having under scrutiny, and I think that, more than in any other Bill, has been highlighted, because this has been in place for so long, but here we are, still discussing it on a day when the latest amendments were made last Wednesday and we still don't even know if they'll be accepted in the House of Commons yet, because that's not finished, that stage. 

But the consideration of the Bill that we had obviously highlights the very difficult position we have and the balancing act that is required of us when we consider the legislative consent motion, because on one hand there is an issue that we may have concerns about, as in our first report, which highlighted an issue that, actually, the Bill has not addressed some of those points; but, on the other hand, we do recognise the need for legislation of this type for a degree of continuity for businesses, workers and consumers now that we've left the transition period. So, it's a blunt instrument that gives us a binary choice: accept it all or reject it all, and I think that highlights the concerns over LCMs, in one sense. 

Now, without revisiting our concerns in detail, I will remind Members—and the Chair of the LJC Committee highlighted this—of the dependence upon despatch-box commitments, as opposed to actually amending the Bill, as we actually called for, to ensure us that the powers granted by the Bill will not be used in the ways in which we had foreseen. And I think that's a very important point. We are too heavily dependent upon such commitments made by Westminster Ministers without actually seeing those changes in the Bill itself, which could have been achieved. Now, that's what the LCM convention does provide us with, unfortunately. It does not measure continuing functions as it should, it limits the ability of both Welsh Government and the Senedd to influence UK policies as such and the legislation that affects us in the devolved administrations. And I think, perhaps I'll extend a little bit, that we are very cautious because this regard shown by the UK Government to the Senedd's last LCM, which we opposed, and it was totally rejected by the UK Government and the majority of Members in Westminster who voted to support the Bill that we had actually said 'no' to. I think this highlights the issue about the LCM procedure. 

Now, we need new and robust constitutional safeguards for the sake of good governance of the UK as whole, something I know Members have heard many times in this Chamber. But to be clear, on a more positive note, the Counsel General, before the committee yesterday, highlighted the fact that there have been different approaches in the trade agenda and arena, and I think, in the future international trade agreements that will be had, that type of approach needs to be followed far more, and we look forward to seeing a concordat, which I will highlight should have been signed 12 months ago, but we're still waiting for it to be signed. So, it is important and it needs to be done, but we do recognise that there has been a move in a different direction. So, there's inconsistency even within the UK Government's approach at the moment, and this inconsistency needs to end. 

We do see a role for the Senedd as well in the future scrutiny of international agreements, and the amendments laid—the Counsel General highlighted today—also include, if you think about it, consideration should be made of regulations we make for changes to any standards we wish to make as well, so that they are considered in any international agreement. And there's no reflection upon that, it's just UK standards, not Welsh or Scottish standards. So, we need to ensure that. We do see a role for the Senedd, but as far as consideration of this Bill is concerned and the questions about legislative consent it poses, it does remind us we need more than oral commitments from UK Government Ministers, we need amendments to Bills. And I would hope that, in future, we get a very strong message sent to the UK Government that that is what is wanted. Diolch.

I think it's a high-quality debate, this, and can I commend the contributions of two excellent Chairs of the committees that I'm a member of, Mick Antoniw and David Rees? They've set the issues neatly before us, because the UK Trade Bill has many flaws, not least that it asks much of the devolved Parliaments yet fails to recognise our democratic right to approve trade agreements reached on our behalf and whose implementation we would govern. Devolved Parliaments must have their approval sought and the right to veto, but this Bill will not give us that right. As a result, Plaid Cymru will vote against this LCM. 

The COVID-19 crisis has proved we need to take a new approach to trade policy for our country. We must consider not only our international priorities and our deep commitment to our environment but also the interests of our communities, businesses and institutions. To achieve this, trade policy must come closer to home. There must be a greater role for our Parliament to make it our trade policy, more resilient and with stronger commitments to climate action. The UK Trade Bill under question today does not do that. Westminster still clings to its one-size-fits-all policy, the size that fits the south-east of England. It's this approach that has created the greatest regional inequalities in Europe, and has amplified divisions between the nations of the United Kingdom.

With the value of Welsh goods exports alone totalling £17.7 billion for the year ending June 2019, international trade is the lifeblood of our economy, allowing Welsh firms, organisations and public bodies to access a global market that draws in investment, income and jobs. Yet the UK Government, despite its abysmal record on negotiating with the EU—to which Wales exported £10 billion of goods and services in 2019—denies our Parliament the right to approve trade deals struck in our name. Our function, it seems, is merely to try to manage the outcomes of these trade deals; we have to lump it.

This Bill fails to address the concerns that trade could negatively impact the climate and environment. Indeed, the UK Government refused to create legally binding trade standards to protect production and quality in areas such as agriculture, as we've heard. We should be taking stronger measures to ensure trade does not come at the cost of the natural world by building into trade agreements conditions relating to ecosystem protection and climate targets. Together with a greater focus on building a domestic circular economy to reduce demand for imported raw materials, measures such as these could reduce significantly the carbon footprint of Welsh trade. Our Parliament must have a say if we are to have any hope of negotiating trade deals that address the growing gulf in our society that respond to and encourage Welsh businesses to export and ensure that our domestic economy can recover from COVID-19. Anything other than equal say is further proof that the UK has learned nothing from the divisions of the last few years and is wilfully ignoring their causes.

The Welsh Government's attitude towards this Bill, though, and securing Welsh interest has been shockingly inadequate. Indeed, the then Minister for international relations, as we've heard, who was previously responsible for this Bill, rejected many of the recommendations put forward by the LJC committee in their first report on this LCM and the tortuous journey it's been on. One of the reasons given for this was that the Minister felt that the UK Government was in a strengthened position with its 80-seat majority since December's election. It was, therefore—and I'm quoting directly here—

'extremely unlikely that any representations the Welsh Government should make to the UK Government on this matter would receive serious consideration.'

So, we didn't bother making any. There we have it, in plain text: Welsh Labour raising the white flag before even making any effort to fight back against Westminster to stand up for the interests of Wales. What better advert for Welsh independence?

Now, the Counsel General admits in the supplementary LCM that—and I quote again—

'Devolved areas may be heavily impacted by future trade agreements'.

If this is the case, why are the Welsh Government content with securing commitments, as we've heard from the UK Government, that are, in the Welsh Government's own words, non-legislative and non-binding? The Sewel convention is patently ignored, inter-governmental agreements and despatch-box promises not worth the paper they are not written on, as LJC and external affairs committees both said, and we've heard in the eloquent presentations by both Chairs this afternoon. For how much longer will Welsh Labour continue to put their faith in Tories and Westminster, whose track record on promises broken is there for all to see? Plaid Cymru will vote against legislative consent on the Trade Bill. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome this motion today and welcome the fact that the Trade Bill is another legislative step to embed Brexit, which, after all, was the biggest constitutional change on any ballot paper in Wales since the vote for devolution. I note this is the second time an LCM on the Trade Bill has come before this Chamber, reflective, I believe, of a rapidly evolving situation in the UK Parliament and reflective of the trade negotiation process with the EU. I thank the committees for their detailed considerations of the LCMs, and I note some disquiet in the report about the use of inter-governmental agreements and despatch-box commitments, and I share that concern, not due to any visions of Wales being done down in any way, but because the approach is messy and relies on too many variables. I understand that we may well hear—well, we've usually heard the term 'power grab' from Plaid, but they didn't use it today—but I would remind those tempted to use those kinds of words that while we were under the jurisdiction of the EU, this place and the Welsh Government appeared perfectly happy to accept any terms deemed necessary by the EU with no meaningful democratic route to query or influence. And now, in the last few days, we see a deal struck between the EU and China. Would we, or our constituents, be happy with that development? COVID aside, the human rights record of the Chinese Communist Party is totally deplorable and should not be rewarded in any way.

As you may have predicted, I will be voting in support of this LCM today, but before I close, I would like to place on record my thanks to the former Minister for international relations for her hard work and pragmatism in getting to this point. It is very much appreciated. And Mr Miles, thank you for supporting this as well today. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have no people who wanted to intervene on the debate, and therefore can I call the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition to reply to the debate? Jeremy Miles.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and can I thank Members for their contributions to the debate? I think many of the contributions were important contributions to the reflections of this Chamber on some of the challenges that are inherent in the consent process when trying to marry the parliamentary timetable in Westminster with the needs of our Senedd here in Wales. I hope I can address some of those key points, at least, in the closing remarks.

On Mick Antoniw's point about the role of Government in standing up for the democratic accountability of the Senedd, I absolutely agree with him that that is one of the roles of Government, and I hope that Members will acknowledge that this Government has never been shy of not recommending that the Senedd consent to legislation that we do not think is in the interests of the Senedd and the people of Wales, and indeed, most recently refusing to participate in what was a mockery, in parliamentary terms, in Westminster, of the consent in relation to the future relationship agreement. We have always taken the view that consent ought to be sought where it's sensible to do that, and that circumstances in which legislation is brought forward in Parliament are a proper consideration in that process.

Mick Antoniw also made the point about the breadth of some of the powers in the Bill, and I would absolutely accept that the language in some of the provisions around the powers to Ministers both in Westminster and in the devolved Governments is broader than we would ordinarily wish to see. I would be content myself with much tighter language. That being said, I think the particular circumstances of the uncertainty around the basis on which we have been operating around Brexit, in the negotiations and in the end of the transition period, I think do provide some justification for a slightly different approach in relation to this, but that isn't to resile from the broad commitment to making sure that powers are appropriately narrowly defined in legislation.

In relation to the points Mick Antoniw made about clause 2.6, the point he made is about seeking amendments to the Bill in order to protect the Government of Wales Act and other constitutional legislation. Welsh Government did, in fact, seek amendments to the Bill in relation to that, albeit in the House of Lords rather than in the House of Commons, on the basis of what I think is a sensible judgment that that was the better route to success. Obviously, that route also, unfortunately, did not succeed. I have, in fact, written to the committee with an explanation of that. I think I took it from Mick Antoniw's remarks that that letter may not have been received, so I will, in fact, check to make sure that's the case, but certainly an explanation was given to the committee in relation to the circumstances around clause 2.6.

Both Mick Antoniw and David Rees have made points of great significance, I think, around the role of despatch-box commitments and non-legislative mechanisms, if you like, to provide clarity and reassurance. David Rees mentioned that those are sought when amendments could be achieved; actually, the case is customary that they are only given when we have failed, effectively, to get commitments on the face of the Bill. So, there is absolutely recognition, I'd imagine, amongst all devolved Governments that they are an imperfect solution to the problem, and we would prefer, obviously, to see amendments on the face of the Bill. But his contribution acknowledged, I think, that that isn't always possible.

As one final point if I may, Dirprwy Lywydd, in relation to the supplementary LCM that was tabled yesterday, obviously, that was very shortly before this debate. I don't myself think that the amendments referred to in the Bill meet the threshold that the Standing Order presents, but they arguably do meet the lower threshold that Ministers sometimes take into account in bringing forward an LCM. I felt that, on balance, given that the debate was happening in relation to other questions of consent, it was in the interests of full consideration by the Senedd to bring forward those further amendments, even though they are slightly more arguable in terms of whether they trigger the LCM. But I thought that it was in the interests of the Senedd to have those in front of it today as it considers this motion, and I hope that the Senedd will approve the motion in the terms laid. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object? Yes, okay. Therefore, we will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Item 12 on our agenda is the legislative consent motion on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move that motion—Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to move the motion on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill and to explain why I believe the Senedd should approve it. The Bill's purpose is to bring medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices that were formerly subject to European Union regulation under UK law following Brexit. It is enabling legislation that will then be implemented in detail through regulations.

The focus of our debate today relates to clause 18 of the Bill, which enables the setting up of one or more medical device information systems operated by NHS Digital to collect data from each of the UK's nations. Also, clause 43, which is an amendment that I sought by way of assurance to strengthen the general powers to consult with devolved Governments, particularly on the medical devices system, before any regulations are made irrespective of whether the proposed regulations are seen as relating primarily to specific device safety matters or supporting the wider healthcare system. 

Although medical device safety and regulation is reserved, patient safety information systems and health data are devolved responsibilities that fall within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. The medical device information system is a response to a Cumberlege report recommendation and would allow for the prompt investigation, patient identification, follow-up and recall of devices, and changes in the clinical techniques employed. It would also allow patients and clinicians to identify the risks associated with specific devices, enable them to select the best treatments and to give their informed consent before undertaking clinical treatments. 

The advantages for Wales of collaborating and working alongside the other UK nations, rather than doing it alone, will be the larger number of patients, devices and procedures involved to enable the earlier discovery of problems and enhancing the potential for learning. There are clear benefits to and for patients from acting and collaborating across the four UK nations. It also, of course, reflects the reality that patients don't always stay within one part of the United Kingdom. 

A UK-wide approach is also, in practical terms, likely to be cheaper and quicker to implement, rather than developing a separate arrangement for Wales with our devolved powers and then having different relationships with those reserved matters. Scotland and Northern Ireland have already signed up to the information system and have given legislative consent to the Bill's proposal. 

Finally, I'd like to thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny of the legislative consent memorandum and the supplementary memorandum. The committees requested further information on the assurances given by the UK Government, and I sent details of those to the committees and Senedd Members last week. They were contained within Lord Bethell's letter to me on 14 December last year following my meeting with him a few days previously. Lord Bethell's letter and commitment to further joint work, the clause 43 amendment and others, go a long way to meeting my earlier concerns about the information system. I move the motion and ask Members to support it.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dai Lloyd?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The LCM on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill was referred to the health committee in July of last year. The committee ran an open call for written evidence and we heard back from BMA Cymru, the Welsh NHS Confederation and the Royal College of Nursing Wales. We also wrote to the Minister for Health and Social Services for further information on a number of outstanding concerns identified in the memorandum itself, and we held a scrutiny session with the Minister on 30 September.

At the time of producing our report, the Minister had been able to secure an agreement from the UK ministerial lead on the Bill to table an amendment that would require consultation with Welsh Ministers and other devolved administrations when making regulations for the introduction of a medical device information system. However, the Minister said that he was seeking more than this. His officials were working on a set of broad principles that would shape the regulations in a way that would be acceptable to the devolved administrations collectively. If everyone could agree on these principles and if they were reflected in the regulations, the Minister said that it would largely address his concerns, as he has repeated again today.

When we published our report, discussions on these principles were at an early stage, with much of the detail still to be resolved. As we did not have all the information needed to come to a view on the merits of the LCM, we did not make a recommendation to the Senedd about whether we should support the LCM or otherwise. Since that report, the Welsh Government has laid the supplementary LCM before us today. In addition, last week, the Minister wrote to me to provide an update on his discussions with the UK Government and to share a draft memorandum of understanding that includes a number of assurances relating to the operation and governance of the medical device information system. In the time available, the committee has not been able to consider formally either the supplementary LCM or the Minister’s letter. Therefore, we have not updated our earlier report and we are not able to offer any further view, other than to note the position of the Welsh Government, as set out in the supplementary LCM, that it supports the policy underpinning the Bill, and the position of the Minister, which is set out in his letter to me, that the draft memorandum of understanding represents a positive compromise approach that provides him with sufficient assurance to enable him to recommend that the Senedd approves the supplementary LCM, although the governance arrangements for medical advice systems do not go as far as he would wish in terms of joint ministerial governance. Thank you very much.

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

Diolch, again, Dirprwy Llywydd. Our report on the original legislative consent memorandum for the Bill was laid in the Senedd October last year, and we laid our report on the supplementary LCM for the Bill just before the Christmas recess. Our first report noted the Welsh Government's assessment that clause 16, which, as has been mentioned, is now clause 18 of the Bill, requires consent, and Welsh Government's reasons as to why, in its view, making provision for Wales in the Bill is appropriate. Members may be aware that the power contained in clause 18 is broad. The Minister has confirmed that. It could be used to make regulations about information systems for the purpose of safety of patients, or the purpose of improving patient outcomes, both of which are devolved matters. Members are also aware that both the Welsh and UK Governments are in agreement that legislative consent should be sought for this cause, and our first report acknowledged the Welsh Government's outstanding concerns in respect of a number of areas of the Bill and, in particular, with regard to certain aspects of what is now clause 18. As such, a supplementary legislative consent memorandum was anticipated. 

In our second report, on the supplementary LCM, we acknowledged that an amendment was made to clause 41, now clause 43, of the Bill, replacing the former general power to consult with a specific requirement that the devolved administrations are to be consulted before any regulations are made in the UK by Ministers under what is, again, clause 18.

In addition, our second report welcomed the fact that the views we set out in our first report are acknowledged in the supplementary LCM whilst also noting that discussions between the Welsh and UK Governments were ongoing. Now, on this latter point, we welcome the recent letter—the Minister referred to it—that we received from him, which includes an update on those particular discussions. However, I do wish to draw attention to the fact, once again, that the Welsh Government has accepted the development of a memorandum of understanding as a means of resolving a dispute with the UK Government. Furthermore, in his letter to us, the Minister said that the agreed arrangements have not gone as far as he would've wished but that he considers the MOU—that's the memorandum of understanding—to be a positive compromise. Nonetheless, I believe that we should welcome the fact that the MOU has been made publicly available in advance of the Senedd's consideration of this consent motion. This is important and has often in the past not been the case. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I have no further comments to make. Apologies. I've nothing to add to the comments made by the Chair of the health committee, of which I am a member. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you very much. I have no people who want to intervene, so, therefore, I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

I thank Members for their comments, which I think fairly reflect the correspondence and the course of discussions that have taken place on this matter. As ever, we're left with a practical consideration. If we could have our ideal format, then we'd have a different arrangement in front of the Senedd, but we have to balance what I think are the clear benefits to the public and to patients from having an improved medical device information system right across the UK that we participate in as fully as possible. And I believe that we should move forward on the basis that we now have.

It is, of course, possible that we may be able to do more, but as I've indicated in my correspondence, Northern Ireland and Scotland already gave consent before the memorandum of understanding was developed—that came directly from the conversations that I had with the UK Government. So, there has been progress. We are further forward along the road of effection than we were several months ago, and I believe that it is appropriate for the Senedd to give its consent and for us to not just engage in Government-to-Government engagement, but, as I've indicated in correspondence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, this would allow reporting on a regular basis to the Parliament as well about the function of the new system, and I think that oversight from the parliamentary scrutiny side is just as important here as it is in any other Parliament within the United Kingdom. I ask Members to support the motion before us.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I see no objections, therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.18, I will suspend the meeting before we proceed to voting time. So, the meeting stands suspended.

So, that brings us to voting time, and the first item is item 6, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) Regulations 2020, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions and three against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 7, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, and I call for a vote on the motion under item 7 that was tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, three abstentions and three against, and therefore that motion is agreed.

Item 8 is next, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, three abstentions and three against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

Item 11 is our next vote on the legislative consent motion on the Trade Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jeremy Miles. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 43, no abstentions and nine against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

And that concludes voting time and our work for the day. Thank you all very much.