Plenary

We'll move now to our second item, the business statement and announcement. I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I've added debates on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 23) Regulations 2021 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 25) Regulations 2021 to today's agenda, along with the corresponding motion to suspend Standing Orders. Additionally, the debate on the legislative consent motion on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has been postponed until next week. Draft business for the next three sitting weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Thank you, Trefnydd, for that statement. Can I call for an urgent statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services in relation to access to NHS COVID passes in Wales for those who received their vaccinations overseas? I understand that action has already been taken in England and indeed in Scotland in order to ensure that people who have received their vaccines overseas can have those validated for incorporating into their NHS COVID pass systems, but for whatever reason Wales appears to be dragging its feet here. I've got constituents who've received their vaccinations in both France and Norway, and even in another part of the UK, in Northern Ireland, who cannot get those validated here in Wales for use in the NHS COVID pass system. That is clearly unacceptable and needs to be addressed. I would be grateful for an urgent statement on the action that is being taken by the Welsh Government to address this so that there can be a clear timetable for those individuals affected to get access to their COVID passes as soon as possible.

Thank you. I know this is something the Minister for Health and Social Services is working on and she will do a written statement when they've got to the conclusion that they want.

I'd be grateful if the Trefnydd could please confirm the media reports that an urgent debate will soon be held about the change to cervical cancer screenings, after we've already heard this afternoon that over 1 million people signed petitions on this issue. I do think it's fundamentally important, because again, as we've heard, over the past week people in Wales, women in Wales, have been deeply confused and concerned because these routine cervical smear tests will now be offered every five years instead of every three years. The fact that the announcement was made on social media with a graphic that didn't explain the context or the reason for this change caused some panic.

Members have been contacted now by Public Health Wales, and the First Minister has set this out this afternoon as well, to explain that the test has changed, the cells will in future be tested for HPV infection first, and we've been assured that that is a more accurate way of screening. That is reassuring to hear, though I have been contacted by constituents who are still concerned. There are some further queries that I will be raising in any debate, but overwhelmingly, an urgent debate must surely be necessary to help quell the concerns of those women who saw that graphic online. They didn't have the contextual information. It's unlikely that the thousands upon thousands of people who've signed those petitions now know about the reason that's been given.

I know our health spokesman has written to the health Minister asking her to arrange direct communication with all of those affected to explain the change, and I really think that an urgent debate on top of this would be welcome. So, could you please confirm, Trefnydd, that those reports are accurate, and could you also tell us please whether the debate will be amendable by Members?

Yes, there will be a debate next week.

I would like to ask for two statements. As someone who has continually asked about the public sector provision of supply teachers, I have long believed that supply teachers are being badly treated. I was very pleased to see the proposed action in the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru agreement. I would like a Government statement on where and how the option for a more sustainable model of supply teaching with fair work at its heart, which will include local authority-led and school-led alternatives, is going to be implemented.

The second statement I'm requesting is on public rights of way. Sections 53 to 56 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 refer to a cut-off date of 1 January 2026 for claiming historic unregistered rights of way that existed before 1949. How does the Welsh Government intend to ensure that all public rights of way are registered?

Thank you. In relation to your second point, around sections 53-56 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, they are not yet commenced in Wales, which means they're not currently enforced, and there are no intentions to bring them into force in Wales.

On your point around the co-operation agreement between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru in relation to supply teachers, as the Member is aware, local authorities are responsible for employing school staff, and that includes supply teachers. Clearly, we have many different systems across Wales—different supply systems and models are all in place. So, to progress this commitment, we're doing a piece of initial work to establish how different local authorities engage, how they utilise the supply teachers they have, and work's also been undertaken to establish how supply teachers are employed not just in Wales, but right across the UK, and the sort of benefits and the disadvantages of the models that are used. I think it's important that we do look at best practice and learn from other countries also. The Minister's officials have started to scope out alternative models. It's a very complex area. There are many financial and legal complications involved. So, we are committed to the review, as you state, and this work is being progressed.

Minister, as a Senedd friend of Srebrenica, I would like to call for a debate in Government time to discuss the worrying developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many of our colleagues here, including Ministers in the Welsh Government, have been long-standing supporters of Remembering Srebrenica UK, ensuring a strong Welsh voice alongside our colleagues in Westminster. There have been debates in the House of Commons and House of Lords on this matter, and I think it is right that we should show solidarity and express our concerns for what we see emerging in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where there is threat of secession of the Serb-majority entity Republika Srpska, with the country now facing a great challenge to its stability and security. I know we are pressed for time. I know that members of the Government will be concerned. In the spirit of co-operation, I would be grateful if the Minister could set aside time for this to be discussed. Thank you.

Thank you. I know there are several Members of the Senedd who have a role as a friend of Srebrenica. The Minister for Social Justice has written to the Foreign Secretary to request an update on the measures being taken by the UK Government. She also set out her concerns around the destabilisation of the region, given Bosnia's recent history. So, as you say, it is a matter of foreign policy—it's a reserved issue by the UK Government—so there are limitations on what we can do and how much we can say. But I'm sure the Minister for Social Justice will be happy to update Members once she has a response from the Foreign Secretary.

Trefnydd, I've previously raised this issue with you and the Minister for Health and Social Services on a number of occasions, but it remains unresolved, and that is the issue of people who cannot be vaccinated or take a lateral flow test, and how they still can't access a COVID pass, which allows them entry to events and venues automatically. On 7 December, you agreed with me that it needs to be urgently resolved, and committed to asking the health Minister to look into the issue and update Members in an oral statement the following week or beforehand. This did not happen, and, when I questioned the Minister, she responded by saying that a great deal of work has been done on this but the same people are now working on the vaccination programme, so it has not been completed. Is it therefore possible for Member to receive an update on this work and an indicative timetable for when it will be completed? I'm constantly being asked this question by constituents, and they are desperate to know when they will be able to access a COVID pass to live their lives as fully as they are able to within the restrictions that are currently in place. Diolch.

Thank you. I haven't spoken to the Minister for Health and Social Services since I initially did following your question to me, Heledd Fychan. I will certainly ask her if it is possible to give an indicative timeline. Obviously, there is the debate this afternoon on the COVID regulations—I don't know if you will have the opportunity, but I will certainly ask her to look at when we will be able to bring that information forward.

I'm delighted to hear, Trefnydd, that we are going to have a debate next week on cervical cancer, which happens to be Cervical Cancer Awareness Week, so great timing. Thank you very much.

I just wanted to ask for a statement from the economy Minister about the way in which the extra £120 million he announced in December to cope with the restrictions that have had to be imposed as a result of omicron are going to help taxi drivers in particular, who been unbelievably badly affected by the clarity with which the Welsh Government message has been heard about the need to not do the usual festive meeting-up with people. This has had a massive impact on taxi drivers' earnings. They would normally earn above £3,000 in December, which helps tide them over the quiet month of January, but now all they've been earning in December has been somewhere in the region of £800 or less, and this has barely covered their costs and they simply don't have any money to live off. So, it would be very useful to hear how the economy Minister's additional money is going to enable people like taxi drivers and, indeed, the hospitality industry where they don't have employment rights, to tide them over this unbelievably difficult situation, given that they can't get universal credit for up to six weeks.

Thank you. Well, you'll be aware of the Minister for Economy's statement just prior to Christmas. So, a discretionary fund will be delivered by local authorities. There will be a short application process, and that will support other businesses such as sole traders and freelancers, and that includes taxi drivers as well, and businesses that employ people but who do not pay business rates. So, the fund will provide £500 to sole traders and freelancers, and £2,000 to businesses employing people in the impacted sectors. Applications will open on local authority websites, I think, next week—the week beginning 17 January—and those windows will be open for two weeks. Obviously, the Minister for Economy will be keeping the support under review

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the health Minister specifically on adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism assessments by the NHS in Wales? I'm genuinely grateful to the Deputy Minister for mental health for her prompt written response when asked about ADHD provisions, and I'm sincerely pleased to hear about the plans for a new time framework to improve children's early access to the right support, as well as a collaboration across Government to improve support for people with ADHD. However, sadly, many adults are being undiagnosed in their childhood, and we know that a person's personal circumstances can bring about profound change within their mental health, and having spoken to adults who have ADHD, it tends to get more serious after the loss of a job, a breakdown in a relationship or a change in circumstance. A petition was lodged with the Senedd in October that said there were currently no adult ADHD or autism assessments on the NHS in Wales. It's a fact that many sufferers go undiagnosed until adulthood because the diagnostic criteria is based on research that focuses on traits exhibited by young boys. The absence of an ADHD or autism diagnosis often results in significant mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety and social anxiety. This petition was rejected, claiming it was already covered by the Government's integrated autism service in Wales. The NHS 111 Wales website states with regard to such services, and I quote,

'Who you're referred to depends on your age and what's available in your local area.'

However, a constituent has contacted me to complain that his doctor's surgery cannot do a referral for his wife as there is no such service available. Leading psychologists have warned that gender bias is leaving many women with ADHD undiagnosed, and it's estimated that tens of thousands of women in the UK are unaware that they have the condition and are not receiving the help that they need. Please can we have a statement from the health Minister addressing these concerns and on how she will deliver adequate adult ADHD services in Wales now? Thank you so much.

Thank you. Well, you referred to an update you had received from the Deputy Minister for mental health, and I will ask her if there is any further information she can update you on. You referred to a constituent contacting you; I would advise you to write directly to the Deputy Minister.

I'd like to ask for a statement, if I could, from the Minister for health on the impact of COVID on the NHS workforce, specifically how people who have been infected by COVID and have continuing issues with their health, rendering them unable to work, will be cared for by the national health service. I'm thinking particularly of a constituent of mine, Steve Bell, who was working in the ambulance service, contracted COVID as part of this work and has now been unable to work since then. These are really serious matters. And I think, in supporting the national health service, the Government's taken some really tough and difficult decisions to protect the national health service, but we also need to take care of the individuals and the people within the national health service, especially those who have contracted COVID as part of their work over the last few years. I think we do have a continuing duty of care to these people—a continuing duty of care both during their illness and then afterwards, as well, if they remain affected by COVID. So, I hope we could have a statement from the health Minister on these matters and a debate on how we can continue to take care of those people who have taken care of us.

Thank you. I think the Member raises a very important point. Clearly, the impact of COVID on individuals who have suffered it is very varied, so it is important particularly that we do continue to support our workforce, who, as you say, have done so much, and I will ask the Minister to provide us with a written statement.

Finally, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd, and blwyddyn newydd dda. I'd like to call for an urgent statement regarding the concerning Welsh coal tip funding revelations. Some Members may be aware that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council's environmental services scrutiny committee report, dated 14 July 2014, states that

'The Welsh Government has traditionally funded reclamation at 100%. Welsh Government has informed the council that it is unlikely to fund future reclamation work unless there is a "business case" for it. The focus of the business case being on economic outputs such as bringing forward development land...However, this leaves the other sites, some of which have historical stability issues, without potential funding and an increased future liability for the Council.'

So, we know about the tips with stability issues being essentially now blocked from Welsh Government funding, including the Tylorstown and Llanwonno tips. Last year, storm Dennis saw a landslip at the Llanwonno tip. So, we really do need, as a Senedd, for the Minister for Climate Change to make a statement to the Senedd explaining why the Welsh Government has changed the criteria for reclamation funding, and will she also clarify how many tips with stability issues did not see reclamation schemes funded as a direct consequence? Diolch, Llywydd.

I think the case that the Member was referring to back in 2014 was because a business case was not put forward. I think that's my recollection of it. The Member will be very aware of the significant progress that the Welsh Government has made to improve our understanding of the number and also of the status of the coal tips that we have here in Wales. We have around 2,500 disused coal tips. A significant piece of work has been undertaken with the Coal Authority and with the UK Government, who, I'm afraid, do continue to ignore its responsibility for the industrial legacy that we have. The Welsh Government has confirmed £44.4 million of investment in coal tip safety for maintenance works over the next three years, but I'm sure the Member will appreciate that business cases do have to be put forward in order to be able to audit and show the way that public money is spent. Our programme for government includes the introduction of a coal tip safety Bill during this Senedd term also.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

The next item is the debate on the statement on the draft budget 2022-23. I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to make that statement and to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am pleased to make a statement on the 2022-23 draft budget laid on 20 December—the first multi-year budget since 2017.

As we stand at the start of a new year, I want to reflect on the circumstances that shaped our preparations, alongside looking forward to what this budget will deliver. The ongoing impacts of the UK leaving the EU, the pandemic, including the emergence of omicron, and the climate and nature emergency—never before have we faced such circumstances as these. We also have not escaped the long shadow of austerity. While we welcomed the multi-year settlement from the UK Government, it has not delivered for Wales. Our budget in 2024-25 will be nearly £3 billion lower than if it had increased in line with the economy since 2010-11. Between 2022-23 and 2024-25, our resource funding increases by less than half a per cent in real terms. Overall capital funding falls in cash terms in each year of the spending review period and is 11 per cent lower in 2024-25 than in 2021-22.

We also face a UK Government that has broken its promises and is intent on assaulting devolution, taking back powers and funding—a far cry from the rhetoric of levelling up and protecting the union. Under the UK Government's community renewal fund, Wales will receive only £46 million this year, compared to at least £375 million we would have received from EU structural funds from January 2021. The UK Government has also walked away from the industrial legacy of coal mines predating devolution. Yet, at the same time, we have much we can be positive about. I want to recognise the exceptional effort undertaken by everyone in responding to the challenges that we've faced. Despite the context, we have used every lever at our disposal to support not only the Wales of today, but shape a future that is stronger, fairer and greener than it was before.

Collaboration remains at the heart of our approach and we have always been clear that we don't have a monopoly on good ideas. We have entered into a co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, the priorities of which can clearly be seen in this budget. This includes additional investment in areas of shared priorities that value our rich heritage and our culture. I've also listened carefully to ideas put forward by Jane Dodds. While we don't have a formal agreement, I have agreed to establish a new £20 million fund, helping deliver vital reforms to services for looked-after children and care leavers. I'm also pleased to build on the constructive debate that we had before the summer recess, on 13 July. You'll see many of the priorities identified by colleagues in that debate reflected in our budget. These include prioritising funding for public services; funding housing and homelessness; funding to pay the real living wage for social care workers from April 2022; a significant investment in our response to the climate and nature emergency; recognising the role of education; and the need to support struggling families.

This budget will take Wales forward. I have delivered on my promise to prioritise funding for health, local authorities and social care. Over the next three years, we will continue to protect, rebuild and develop our public services. We are investing an additional £1.3 billion in our Welsh NHS to provide effective, high-quality and sustainable healthcare, and help recovery from the pandemic. We will stand by our local authorities through close to an additional three quarters of a billion pounds in the local government settlement, providing funding for schools, social care and other vital services. Alongside £60 million of direct additional funding, in 2022-23 alone we are providing over an additional £250 million for social services, including £180 million within the local government settlement to drive forward wider reforms to place it on a sustainable long-term footing.

The pandemic has also created a mental health crisis. In addition to the direct NHS investment, we will invest an additional £100 million targeted at mental health, including more than £10 million for children and young people, recognising the risks of the lasting and long-term impacts felt by our young people in Wales.

We'll build a stronger, greener economy, including over £110 million in additional non-domestic rates relief to businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors. We cannot and will not ignore the devastating and unequal impacts the pandemic has had on the people of Wales. We will continue to celebrate diversity and move to eliminate inequality in all of its forms, including by investing £10 million in our basic income pilot, to test the benefits of addressing poverty, unemployment, and improving wellbeing.

With individuals continuing to be affected by the pandemic and changes to universal credit, vulnerable people and families across Wales are turning to our discretionary assistance fund for additional support. We will invest an additional £7 million to meet this ongoing demand, providing support for those most in need.

Investing in early years and education remains one of our most powerful levers. We're investing an additional £320 million in our long-term education reforms, ensuring educational inequalities narrow and standards rise. This includes £90 million, in our shared priority with Plaid Cymru, to ensure an additional 196,000 children become eligible for free school meals in Wales.

We will build an economy based on the principles of fair work and sustainability, including an additional £61 million in our young person's guarantee, employability support and apprenticeship provision, helping people into employment so that they can earn a good income, and offering a route out of poverty and protection against it.

As a world we face a climate and nature emergency that demands urgent and radical responses, and Wales can play its part. I've delivered on my promise to use the new 10-year Wales infrastructure investment strategy to strengthen the link between infrastructure and tackling the climate and nature emergency. Through undertaking a fundamental zero-based review, I have published a new three-year infrastructure finance plan, underpinned by £8 billion of capital expenditure, including full use of our £450 million capital borrowing powers.

Alongside an additional £160 million revenue package, at the heart of this plan is a total £1.8 billion investment in our response to the climate and nature emergency. This includes £57 million to support the delivery of a national forest extending from the north of Wales to the south; £90 million to enhance green spaces at all scales and to ensure that we meet our existing and emerging international biodiversity responsibilities; £580 million to drive decarbonisation of our social housing stock; £100 million to be invested in tackling fuel poverty and providing warm homes; £90 million to deliver our renewable energy ambitions; and £102 million to provide additional flood protection for more than 45,000 homes, delivering nature-based solutions across Wales.

Conservative spokesperson, Peter Fox.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Can I thank you, Minister, for your statement today? The past two years have been some of the most difficult that we have experienced. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected us all, restrictions have curtailed our freedoms, vast swathes of our society have been forced to shut, and public services have come under huge pressure. Our front-line services, as well as our communities, still face significant challenges as we move through the next phase of the pandemic.

We are part of a wider union of nations, and it's by being part of this union that the Welsh Government has been in a position to support public services and businesses, as well as to respond to the pandemic. We've seen significant amounts of money flow into Wales from the UK Government since the pandemic began, and I very much welcome the additional £2.5 billion per year on average for the Welsh Government over the spending review period, as announced in the recent budget settlement, and the Wales fiscal analysis states that this equates to an average increase of 3.1 per cent a year each year in that period.

Within that context, then, Deputy Llywydd, I welcome the much-needed business rates holiday to help firms recover from the ongoing challenges of the pandemic, along with the uplift in funding for our local authorities who deliver so many key services in communities across Wales. I think all of us in this virtual Chamber will also welcome the additional £1.3 billion for the Welsh NHS over the next three years.

But, of course, Minister, the devil is always in the detail, and, as the First Minister mentioned earlier, there is always an opportunity cost to spending decisions, and we need to understand what these may be, and I'm sure that work will be going on through the committees over the next few weeks. For example, I've heard concerns from a number of business owners in my own constituency that the support offered by the economic resilience fund would not cover the significant loss of income that they incurred during the festive period, which, of course, usually helps many hospitality businesses through those quieter months at the start of the year. There are also concerns about the criteria having to be used to use the ERF, in which businesses need to have lost 60 per cent of their turnover to be eligible. So, even if a business was fortunate enough to not have been significantly impacted by restrictions, a smaller loss of income would still have a substantial impact, given the financial aspects of the past two years.

The Federation of Small Businesses Wales is also calling on Welsh Government to review and increase the funding available to support businesses in the sector hit by COVID restrictions introduced over the festive period. They have stated that they are concerned by the, I quote,

Aside from business support, we also need to look at ways of supporting our local and national economies, and I think that this budget could have done far more in this regard. Our town centres will be provided with an extra £100 million capital over the budget period, but I question whether this fund will be enough to finally start reversing the long-term decline of the high street and to help them adapt to changing consumer habits that have been exacerbated over the pandemic. I also could not find much mention of how Welsh Government will invest in Welsh producers and manufacturers to export more of their goods and services abroad and to help enhance the 'Made in Wales' brand. I would appreciate some more information on this, if possible, Minister.

Then there's the increase in funding for the NHS. From what I'm aware, close to £900 million of the total funding is to be allocated in the 2022-23 financial year. Whilst much needed, and we welcome that, this would leave just £400 million to be allocated over the remaining two years, meaning health boards may be tempted to hold back some of the original funding to fill any anticipated shortfalls in future budgets. Minister, could I ask how decisions on how to allocate this funding were made, and whether you can provide hospitals and health boards with the funding certainty they need in the medium to long term? I'm also disappointed to note that the introduction of the regional surgical hubs to tackle the NHS waiting list backlog, as previously called for by the Conservatives, was not part of the budget. Would you consider working with us, Minister, to look into how we can speed up access to treatment, using some of your unallocated funding to introduce a £30 million GP access plan so more patients can see their GP and help to reduce the strain on hospitals?

Now, despite the positive settlement for councils, this has to be viewed within the wider context. This accommodates the continued impacts that will no longer be met by the COVID hardship fund, significant pressures faced across social care, Welsh Government policy costs and inflationary pressures. Much of this additional funding will already be swallowed up, leaving little room for councils to manoeuvre. Councils also need greater clarity on specific grant funding streams for next year to help with financial planning, as well as clarity on additional grant funding that they could expect to see coming before the end of March. Minister, would you be able to give more clarity in that regard?

I've also heard of some concerns that the current public highways refurbishment grant may be removed, leaving councils concerned as to how they will pay for the upkeep of already creaking road networks. I acknowledge your Government's position on new road building, but the fact is that we still need roads and they still need to be maintained by councils. Could you clarify this situation, Minister, and state whether it is your intention to provide additional funds for road maintenance, as the Government has previously done?

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the statement on the Welsh draft budget. The Minister has described this budget—and we’ve just heard the Conservative spokesperson repeating that—as a budget that will create a fairer, greener and stronger Wales. But I will go further and say that, thanks to Plaid Cymru, this budget will create an even fairer Wales, an even greener Wales and an even stronger Wales. From free school meals for all primary pupils to the extension of free childcare to all two-year-olds, to tackling the housing crisis and far, far more, the commitments that Plaid Cymru has secured as part of the co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government will be transformational, particularly for some of our poorest households. The investment in this budget to implement those radical policies from the co-operation agreement are ones that we support, of course, because, as I say, they will contribute a great deal to changing the lives of people for the better, wherever you are in Wales.

Beyond what’s in the agreement, of course, we, like all other Members of the Senedd, have a job of work to do in scrutinising the rest of the budget and to ensure that it does deliver what is needed and that it has the most positive impact possible under the circumstances we find ourselves in. I say that not only because COVID is casting a shadow over everything, and not only because leaving the European Union is still having an impact on the Welsh economy, or because the high levels of inflation and increases in living costs will all have a significant impact on the work of Government, on public services and on the lives of families across Wales, but I am talking too about the inadequacy of the settlement from the UK Government.

Now, as we’ve heard on a number of occasions, and the Minister echoed this in her statement, if the budget coming to Wales had increased in line with the size of the UK economy since 2010, then Wales would have an additional £3 billion in the draft budget before us today. In a budget of the scale of ours, £3 billion is a very significant sum indeed. Instead of that, of course, and unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, Wales has to foot the bill for projects such as HS2, which is being built entirely outwith Wales and to the disadvantage of the Welsh economy. The cruel cuts by the Prime Minister to universal credit have taken over £0.25 billion out of the Welsh economy and it will leave more than 0.25 million Welsh families facing being plunged into poverty. The Conservatives have broken their promises on European funding too. The Minister mentioned the £46 million that we have received from the community renewal fund, where of course we would have received £375 million were we still in the European Union. Despite their pledge in Westminster that Wales wouldn't be a penny worse off, the budget for agricultural support is £137 million less this year, and it will be £106 million short next year.

Our spending review set up an unadjusted Welsh block grant from the Treasury through to 2024-25. This three-year budget is something many of us have been calling for for a very long time, and allows for longer term planning.

Wales Fiscal Analysis estimate that, excluding COVID funding, the core budget for annual day-to-day expenditure by the Welsh Government will increase by £2.9 billion by 2024-25 compared to 2021-22, the equivalent of an approximate 3.1 per cent a year over the spending review period in money terms. That was something that Peter Fox said earlier. But—there's always a 'but'—if inflation is taken into account, this is at best a standstill budget. We've seen huge increases recently in inflation. That's bound to impact on the public sector. Higher costs of delivering services, higher wages and also much higher energy costs—local authorities and the public sector are not immune to this.

On housing proposed expenditure, I'm very pleased with the planned investment for the next three years in the social housing grant, pleased to see the housing support grant maintained at its current level, but I would prefer to see an inflationary increase across three years to support the cost of living increases in staff pay. The indicative budget is flat across three years, so in real terms would be something like a 10 per cent reduction.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to discuss alternative budgets because neither Plaid Cymru nor the Conservatives are either able or willing to create alternatives. The most recent estimate of tax and spend in Wales was produced in the 'Wales' Fiscal Future' report, produced by Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre in March 2020, which is not considered to be an anti-Welsh nationalist or anti-Plaid Cymru group. And the report estimated that, in 2018-19, Wales raised £29.5 billion in taxes and had £43 billion spent on it by the Welsh and UK Governments, meaning that £13.5 billion more was spent on Wales than was raised by Welsh taxes.

I normally ask at this time if Plaid Cymru would like to produce a budget for an independent Wales, and the answer has always been 'yes', but I've never seen one. This year, I'll ask a different question: do they intend in an independent Wales to abolish the NHS, abolish pensions, increase taxes by 46 per cent, or a combination of cuts to all services and substantial increases, or have they got a magic money tree? Also, Plaid Cymru's opposition to bypasses is well known, except it works outside the area represented by their leader, where Llandeilo is about to get its second bypass when many other places haven't had a first.

The Conservative policy is easy to understand: cut taxes and hold no increase in expenditure. Put simply, it does not work. If the Conservatives want to reduce expenditure, let them tell the people where. Their big idea of abolishing free prescriptions did not last long during the Senedd election campaign after they started to talk to focus groups and to the electorate in general.

Can I start by thanking the Minister for the open and collaborative way she and her officials have taken in working with me in recent months? Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I agree wholeheartedly with her when she said that the Senedd has worked at its best and achieved most when parties across the Chamber have worked together. The Welsh Liberal Democrats' priority at the election was a fair and green recovery following the pandemic; ensuring our NHS and care services were supported; providing opportunities for children and young people; supporting workers and small business; and putting the climate crisis at the heart of our economy. I am pleased to see elements of this draft budget that reflect those aims, and I'm delighted that, through discussions over recent months about a children and young people's budget, the Welsh Liberal Democrats have been able to secure £20 million to radically reform services for care-experienced children and young people. And I'm pleased to see additional funding for mental health services included in the budget as well.

This must be a budget that carefully balances the immediate challenges we face, but that looks at the future we want to create for our planet and for the next generation: a kinder, fairer, greener and more just Wales. And, finally, I look forward to the remainder of this budget process. Diolch, Gweinidog; diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I wish everybody a happy new year and a healthy 2022.

While there is much to be welcomed in this budget, it unfortunately does little to address the massive crisis facing social care in Wales. This budget will put into effect the Welsh Government's answer to the recruitment crisis facing the care sector, namely a wage of £9.90 per hour. But unfortunately, this is too little, too late, as a couple of days ago the UK's second biggest supermarket chain, Sainsbury's, announced that they are about to pay a minimum wage of £10 an hour, and we've already seen Lidl increase their minimum wage to £10.10 per hour. How can we justify paying those caring for our most vulnerable less money than somebody working in a supermarket? And I've recently been criticised for making this comparison, but I'm not denigrating those providing a valuable service in keeping our nation fed, but simply pointing out the perversity of paying people working in the care sector less than supermarket workers.

A year ago, when my party were drawing up our policy platform, when we committed to paying a minimum of £10 per hour to care staff, this was well above the minimum wage, and part of a package aimed at making the caring profession an attractive career prospect for young people. We can't continue to exploit those whose care and compassion drives them to dedicate their lives to caring for others. Adequate pay and conditions for care staff should have been implemented on day one of this sixth Senedd, but thanks to continued dither and delay, we are reaping the whirlwind. We have a recruitment crisis in care and it's having a clear and demonstrated effect on our NHS, as one in six NHS beds are occupied by patients who are medically able to be discharged but cannot be sent home because of the lack of a care package—a care package that cannot be provided because of a lack of care staff. And this has driven some local health boards to directly employ care staff, which in turn has resulted in poaching staff from the care sector.

Sadly, this budget does little to address these issues. It will do nothing to address the recruitment crisis, and the additional moneys for social care are going to be pumped into the integrated care fund—a fund that the Auditor General for Wales states is not meeting its potential. He said, and I quote,

'aspects of the way the fund has been managed at national, regional and project levels have limited its potential to date. There is little evidence of successful projects yet being mainstreamed and funded as part of public bodies' core service delivery.'

So it shows that, yes, once again, this Welsh Government is pinning its hopes on the fund. The integration of health and care shouldn't still be reliant on pilot projects; social care should not be treated as the junior partner in this deal. And once again, vast sums have been pumped into secondary care, into the NHS black hole. But unless we address the issues in social care and provide the necessary funding, our waiting lists will continue to grow, as beds continue to fill up with patients needing social care and not medical care. So, I urge the finance Minister to rethink and provide greater funding for social care. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Minister, for this budget update this afternoon. I'm speaking this afternoon as one of the regional Members for South Wales East. I welcome the extra clarity your statement brings, because it allows the Senedd to provide the rigorous and focused scrutiny that is required for each and every Welsh Government budget. I'd appreciate further detail on a couple of important matters.

Since my election, I have championed an improved funding settlement for Tŷ Hafan and Tŷ Gobaith—the two children's hospices in Wales. The amazing people behind both hospices crave an improved funding settlement to allow them to do more for the vulnerable children and families they care for. We have already established that their state funding pales in comparison to children's hospices in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. When I raised this matter in the Siambr last summer, the health Minister said a report had been commissioned and would be reporting back in the autumn. Well, autumn has since come and gone, and we have heard nothing publicly. I understand there have been some positive indications about improved funding for children's hospices in Wales, but, as yet, nothing on the record. Can you therefore provide an update with regard to the voluntary hospices funding review and what additional funding will be made available to Tŷ Hafan and Tŷ Gobaith within the budget for 2022-23?

Finally, can you tell me if the budget includes enough of a commitment to recovery services for children? A commitment to invest in early years interventions such as Flying Start is welcome, as is the focus on social care. However, I understand there is a concern from experts in the field, such as NSPCC Cymru, that recovery services for children who have already experienced abuse, neglect or trauma have not always been sustainably funded. Back in November, you reassured the Senedd that Welsh Government will recognise the importance of children's social services and also children's mental health as well. I'm seeking a commitment today that recovery services for children continue to be available to the child for as long as they are needed. Diolch yn fawr.

I would like to welcome this draft budget, which outlines continued support for local authorities as they continue to provide services at the forefront of the pandemic. I understand that it's more generous than what has been allocated for English councils by UK Government, and the fact that it is free from hypothecation, as in Scotland, is most welcome.

However, I'd like to outline some concerns I have about the lack of funding outlined for the maintenance of existing highways maintained by local authorities. The Welsh Local Government Association have been told there will be no continuation of the much valued grant of £20 million and that road maintenance funding is being reinvested into active travel. I was told in response to my question in the Senedd that funding from the pause in the building of new roads would be reinvested in active travel and the maintenance of existing roads. In these challenging financial times, it's essential that we do not neglect the maintenance of our highways. Following 10 years of UK austerity and cuts to public service funding, a 2020 county surveyor survey estimated that a backlog of deferred highway asset maintenance of more than £1.6 billion currently exists.

In addition to constant use and ageing, our assets are undergoing pressure from the effects of climate change. The heavy rainfall we are experiencing washes away road surfaces, creates potholes, sunken gullies and fills drains with debris that then have to be constantly emptied to be effective. Recent additional Government grant funding has provided authorities with the opportunity to arrest deterioration of some, but not all the highway assets. It was really much valued, that £20 million each year over the last three years. A steady state investment is required annually to keep the assets in their current condition. It's estimated, just to keep them in their current state, carriageways require £65 million per annum, footways £9 million, and structures including bridges £46 million per annum. These structures, such as bridges, are being impacted greatly by flooding and climate change. So, they really need this investment. Allowing assets to deteriorate to this level where replacement is the only option risks incurring avoidable costs in the future, and the potential for some assets to fail at short notice, which is happening now, such as a new bridge—. There's a bridge in Denbighshire and there have been landslides in Flintshire. Many local authorities have been impacted. All this will necessitate expensive reactive repair, closure and, in extreme instances, increased user risk.

I notice that trunk road agencies continue to be comparatively well funded, as they have again in this budget, but most of our highway network falls to local authorities. Motorways and dual carriageways account for a very small percentage of our infrastructure across Wales. Our roads need to be maintained so they continue to be available for use by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, motorists and businesses. It's impossible to provide dedicated cycle routes on the majority of our highways. Cyclists need to use the edge of roads, which are made dangerous by potholes and blocked gullies. These also cause increased wear of tyres, which are one of the greatest pollutants and cause exacerbation to climate change as well, and pollution in our water courses. Going forward, I would like to see significant and continued Welsh Government investment in our roads network to ensure that they are fit for purpose. They are our biggest assets. Thank you.

In welcoming the budget statement and this debate, I have to put on record my disappointment when it comes to our climate change agenda. Members will be well aware of my concerns raised in the Senedd that the Welsh Government continues to place long-term arrangements for environmental governance on the back burner, thereby squandering this opportunity for Wales to be a world leader in environmental green protections. Indeed, whilst Natural England is receiving a 47 per cent increase in UK Government funding, data provided by Wales Environment Link, via their budgetary consultation submission, shows that Natural Resources Wales's funding has decreased by 35 per cent between 2013 and 2020. Over the same period, prosecutions on environmental offences have reduced by 61 per cent, with WEL members rightly raising concerns about an apparent lack of capacity for robust monitoring programmes and management of protected sites. According to my own analysis, NRW is now set to receive a real-terms cut in funding, with them remaining at £69.7 million for 2022-23. So, to protect our green spaces, I ask the Minister to review this situation, and look to use whatever resources are available to introduce a framework for a long-term independent office for environment protection.

On the issue of budgetary analysis, I also notice concerns regarding the fact that the budget lines for marine and fisheries often become entangled. With marine conservation being a central concern for many residents along the coast here, in north Wales, the present level of difficulty in trying to identify what level of budget is being provided for marine biodiversity or habitat restoration, compared to funds available for supporting the fishing industry—. It's not there. So, in the name of transparency, would the Minister look to provide an additional breakdown so that this can be scrutinised more easily?

Elsewhere, I recognise that an unspecified amount will go towards establishing a publicly owned energy company. Given the issues encountered by the Bristol Energy company, whereby the failing asset was sold for £14 million, which was far less than the £36.5 million invested by Bristol City Council, perhaps this money would be better spent establishing a microgrid trial in north Wales. Decision makers in Cardiff Bay have long acknowledged that Wales continues to experience a grid capacity crisis, which is causing an unnecessary trip in the system, preventing meaningful and long-term progress in the nation's green industrial revolution. Fostering such a microgrid trial in north Wales would be in line with the north Wales energy strategy. So, I ask that the Minister again looks at this budget so that our shared interest in such progress can be recognised with the resource it deserves.

The people of Islwyn will welcome this important statement today, and this budget will take Wales forward. As the Minister noted, we have in no way escaped the years of Tory austerity before this pandemic hit. The lack of fair funding for Wales, pernicious over the last decade, and the lack of UK infrastructural spend in Wales, including the lack of HS2 consequentials, has been shocking and has consequences, as did the scrapping of the UK pandemic preparedness group. COVID-19 has challenged and continues to challenge every nation on earth. The Welsh Government is therefore both fiscally and morally right to prioritise funding for our public services. It is right to provide an additional £1.3 billion to our heroic Welsh NHS and an additional £0.75 billion to our hard-working local authorities in the local government settlement. With a strong collaborative approach in our policy and a strong budget investment in education, transport and climate, with fairer, greener, nature-based solutions, a made-in-Wales approach for—

Rhianon, can I ask you to stop a second? We've lost your video. We just want to make sure that it's operational at your end.

Yes, it is. We're having problems with the video. It has to be intermittently put back on. I've almost finished. If I can just come to my question, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Okay. As long as you're aware the video is not working for us. Okay?

That's absolutely fine. It's doing that, and they're trying to sort it.

So, Minister, how do you explain, then, to my constituents how it is that Wales will only receive £46 million this year from the UK Government's community renewal fund, on an ad-hoc, non-transparent basis, compared to the £375 million that we would have received from EU structural funds from January 2021? That's a loss of £329 million, when we were told we would receive not a penny less. Thank you.

Thank you to the Minister for bringing forward this budget.

Firstly, as Members are aware, I'm extremely proud of what the co-operation agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government seeks to achieve, especially when it comes to free school meals. Extending free school meals to all primary school pupils is the first step to achieving universal free school meals, and that will go a long way to ensuring that kids from all backgrounds are guaranteed nutritious food as part of their education.

We do have some distance to go yet, but if I can focus on free school meals for all primary school children for now, I hope the Government would give some consideration to front-loading financial support in this budget for free school meals so that we can see the benefits of this policy sooner rather than later. The sooner we can get this policy implemented across Wales, the better off people will be. Ideally, I would like to see this policy fully implemented in 2022.

I'd also be interested to learn if the provision for providing free school meals through the school holiday period is still accounted for in the budget. I can't stress enough how much of a lifeline this is for families over the holiday period, when costs rise significantly for families with children, and this becomes even more important as we begin to see a cost-of-living crisis emerge.

And finally on free school meals, but on a wider point of policy, does the Government account for the positive impacts of policies such as free school meals and the subsequent savings that are made in other areas, such as health and the economy, when putting together their budget?

I'm grateful to the Minister for her statement opening this debate. I noticed that the Minister seems to be making a great deal of notes during this debate. She's always welcome, of course, whenever we're debating these things, but I'm sure she's been as shocked as I am during this debate that, having spent 10 years listening to Tories lecture us on austerity, lecture us on being very careful with the public purse and the rest of it, we've just had a number of Tory speakers standing up and spending a million quid with every breath they take. We've had Gareth Davies demanding more money for investing in social services. I tend to agree with him, as it happens, but it's his Government that's been cutting it in the first place, of course. Janet Finch-Saunders bemoans the lack of investment in climate change when she has a Government that barely believes in it in Westminster and has certainly cut back on investment on the other side of the border. And poor old Peter Fox, of course, wants to spend money on everything, just in case. So we have had a Conservative debate this afternoon that has been entirely rooted in spending public money that they themselves are involved in cutting. There is a word for that. I won't test your patience, Deputy Presiding Officer, this afternoon, but there is a word for that, and it was used quite freely in Westminster at lunchtime.

Let me say this: I think in terms of the debates that we have on our budgets in Wales, we need to focus more on income than on expenditure. Anybody can spend money. Anybody can stand up and demand more funding for every subject under the sun. I welcome the conversations that the Government has had with Plaid Cymru and with the Liberal Democrats. I see the influence of both those parties on this budget, and I think it's something to be welcomed. I also notice that the contributions from Jane Dodds and from Plaid Cymru Members this afternoon have been far more rooted in reality and rooted in delivery than the fantasies we've heard from Conservative Members. But let me say this in terms of not spending, but raising funds: I'd like to understand more from the Minister how she is looking at her budgets over the coming years. Because it's fake, of course, for the Conservatives to argue that this is the most generous spending agreement or settlement that we've ever had. It's the easiest thing in the world to look at the cash numbers and say this is more than last year, and that's more than the year before. That's basic arithmetic. It's not the reality, though, and it's not the reality that we've had over the last decade. I remember Peter Fox very well as a local government leader; I don't remember him once telling me that he would prefer to be an English local government leader than a Welsh local government leader when he was dancing a very neat little dance around the words of Andrew R.T. Davies in the Chamber being thrown back at him in other meetings. But I don't blame him for that either.

You haven't got the time to do so, Alun.

I haven't got the time, so I won't test your patience this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister in replying will be able to address some of the issues around how we raise funds in Wales, and how we're able to better marshal those funds in order to achieve the objectives that I think she set out, and with which I completely agree.

Thank you, Minister, for bringing forward today's statement on the draft budget. Just a brief reminder at this point that I'm still a member of Conwy County Borough Council, as my register of interest shows.

Like many Members, just before Christmas, while I was doing my best to ensure Father Christmas was able to arrive safe and well, I too was eagerly awaiting for the draft budget to be released and to see what would be spent where, and the effects that this would have. As my colleague Peter Fox excellently outlined in his contribution, whilst acknowledging the pressures caused by the pandemic, despite Mr Davies's concerns that some of us Conservatives aren't perhaps conservative enough, this budget must be invested wisely to deliver on the priorities of working people, with a laser-like focus on creating better paid jobs and delivering vital public services.

As a Minister, you've outlined yourself something that I've continuously raised with you during this pandemic, which is that councils have gone above and beyond in providing vital services to local people. Indeed, this sentiment has been repeated by Members across parties today, including Mr Hedges and Mr Gruffydd as well in their contributions. So, it will come as no surprise today that I will focus my brief contribution on local government, and specifically the local government settlement. I know that many councils up and down Wales, including the Welsh Local Government Association, have welcomed the local government settlement within this budget—an increase of 9.4 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to the current year. Of course, as an ex-council leader, I too would have liked to have seen this during my time leading a council.

It is fair, though, also to say that this local government settlement has come after years and years of underfunding to councils, especially those further north and perhaps rural councils, which have had significant cuts over that time. Because of this, and despite the increase in funding, it looks like many councils will still have to raise council tax this year to cover their pressures. But more funding to councils this year could have alleviated this issue. It's now likely that increased pressure will be put on local residents through higher taxation, even though they have been hit hard during this COVID-19 pandemic. With this context in mind, I would like to raise just three really brief points, Deputy Presiding Officer.

First, linked to these pressures, it's worth highlighting the financial demands that councils are likely to face over the next three years. This has been estimated at over £1 billion of increased pressures. And, Minister, as your statement noted, the funding to cover this over the next three years has only been committed to three quarters of this, at £750 million. In fact, future years show significant shortfalls in funding likely to be made to councils. It would be a welcome move if, Minister, you could consider proper funding of these next three years of pressures to enable councils to deliver the services that our residents need.

I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to reply.

Thank you very much. Thank you to all colleagues for what has been a really, really useful debate. There have been so many points raised. So, I will try and respond to at least some of the key themes, but I know that my colleagues will have been listening carefully, and I look forward to responding to some of the more detailed points in the committee scrutiny sessions that will be taking place over the coming weeks.

So, the debate began with Peter Fox's reflections on the benefits of the union, and, absolutely, I would agree that Wales is stronger by being part of the union, and the union is stronger with Wales in it. But it certainly doesn't mean that there is not room for improvement. From a finance perspective, we could certainly do with improvement in terms of flexibility, clarity, fair play, and sticking to the letter and the spirit of the statement of funding policy.

I think that some of the contributions have really drawn out why all of this is important. So, Rhianon Passmore and Alun Davies were keen to talk about the loss of EU funding. Under the UK Government's community renewal fund, we heard that Wales will receive only £46 million this year, compared to at least £375 million we would have received from the EU structural funds from January 2021. So, clearly, a promise broken and one that will have real impacts in communities across Wales. Exiting the EU is compounding the economic damage caused by COVID. The loss of hundreds of millions of pounds in EU funding through the UK Government plans just adds to the pressures that we face, and it will be a ferocious impact, as Alun Davies described.

The UK Government has also announced that £0.4 billion will be available UK-wide on the shared prosperity fund in 2022-23, £0.7 billion in 2023-24, and £1.5 billion in 2024-25. So, clearly, by anyone's reckoning, we are absolutely being short-changed of the £375 million that we would have had annually through the EU had we remained in it and had the UK Government kept its promise that we wouldn't be a penny worse off.

Llyr Gruffydd also talked about farm funding, and that's another area where the UK Government has let us down badly. Our rural communities and farmers will lose out on at least £106 million of replacement EU funding over the spending review period, on top of the £137 million not provided for by the UK Government in this financial year. So, we completely disagree with the UK Government's assertion that they've met their obligations to provide replacement funding for farmers and rural development through a combination of replacement funding from the spending review and Wales's remaining EU funding. It's just a really disingenuous way of describing the way in which they're providing support for our rural communities, and, again, it will have real impacts for farming communities across Wales.

The issue of borrowing was also referred to, and this again is an area where if we did have greater flexibility then we could certainly plan better and we could make the most of our borrowing capacity. Our draft budget does reflect our plans to maximise our capital borrowing, drawing the maximum annual drawdown of £150 million a year, borrowing an additional £450 million up to 2024-25, and that's the maximum that we can currently access within the fiscal framework. So, we would like to raise the annual borrowing that we're able to access, and also the overall amount of borrowing that we're able to access. Those discussions are ongoing with the UK Government. We're not making any progress at the moment, but there will still be arguments that we continue to make alongside colleagues in the other devolved Governments. But I will add that we always, in our budgets, plan to draw down the full borrowing. The reason why it isn't allocated at the end of the year is as a result of late in-year changes announced by the UK Government that impact on our overall budget.

I also draw colleagues' attention to the fact that for the first time this year we're using an over-allocation of general capital, so that will help us to further stretch every available pound of capital funding, and will hopefully give us an opportunity really to provide flexibility for ourselves in the absence of it from the UK Government.

I've talked about borrowing, so I'll also mention tax. Our draft budget uses tax forecasts published by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the Welsh taxes outlook, and taken together, WRIT, LTT, LDT and NDR will contribute around £3.9 billion to the Welsh Government budget in 2022-23, and that rises to £4.3 billion in 2024-25. This is the first multi-year budget since tax devolution, so it's important to note that future forecasts won't only affect in-year budget management in 2022-23, but also the overall budgetary arithmetic for 2023-24 and 2024-25, and I know that we'll be discussing that with the Finance Committee in due course. But it does really speak, I think, to the need to continue our efforts to grow our Welsh tax base, and you can see examples throughout the budget as to how we intend to do that. The personal learning accounts would be one really good example of how we intend to support people and continue to support people to maximise their income. So, I think that that's an area we can be very proud of, and an area, actually, where we've been doing some really good work in terms of gender budgeting, and I look forward to opportunities to discuss that further in committees.

Mental health has been referred to, and, again, this is a really important pillar of our budget, and I know that there was particular concern expressed during the debate about children and young people's mental health, and we absolutely recognise the impact that the pandemic has had in this area. So, as part of our overall £100 million investment, we're allocating an additional £10.5 million, up to 2024-25, directly in young people's mental health to support the whole-system approach.

Obviously, health is the largest part of our budget, and we're investing an additional £1.3 billion in revenue funding over the next three years in our NHS, taking the total spend in the NHS to over £9.6 billion. As part of that, we're committing £170 million recurrently to support the transformation of planned care, to help to tackle the backlog of patients whose treatments have been delayed by the pandemic, and also investing a further £20 million recurrently to support a focus on values-based healthcare, delivering outcomes that matter to patients. So, by the end of this budget period, we'll have invested over £800 million in NHS recovery, demonstrating our commitment to spending £1 billion over the lifetime of this Government. And we're also committed to ensuring that the NHS organisations maintain the financial stability that they've worked so hard to secure in recent years as they transform services for the future. So, we're allocating £180 million recurrently from 2022-23 onwards to help the NHS manage the financial impact of the pandemic on their underlying financial position, including recognising the impact that the pandemic has had on productivity and efficiency, and we would expect the NHS to return to pre-pandemic efficiency levels as the impact of COVID on core services eases.

There was reference to non-domestic rates and the importance of supporting businesses, and I absolutely recognise that. Of course, in this financial year, and I don't want to dwell too much on this financial year because I don't want to muddy the waters, but businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors still aren't paying business rates because they've had a full year's support. And the draft budget does now include £116 million to provide that 50 per cent rate relief for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors in 2022-23. And that means that businesses in those sectors will continue to receive significant support as they recover from the pandemic. And we've invested, actually, an additional £20 million on top of the consequential we received from the UK Government to fund this decision, and that means that in combination with our existing permanent relief schemes, we will ensure that over 85,000 properties in Wales are supported in paying their rates bills in 2022-23. And since the start of the pandemic, of course, we have provided over £2.2 billion of support for ratepayers through our reliefs and our grant schemes, which I'm really pleased we've been able to do.

Minister, can you conclude your response now?

Finally, on local government, I'm really pleased that we were able to provide local government with a positive settlement. As Sam Rowlands says, like-for-like, it will increase by 9.4 per cent compared to the current year and no authority will receive less than an 8.4 per cent increase. I think this does reflect the importance that Welsh Government puts on local government as absolute key partners in delivering for people in Wales and driving us forward towards that fairer, greener and more prosperous Wales that I know we all want to see. My colleagues and I very much look forward to the committee scrutiny sessions.

I thank the Minister and all of those who contributed.

The next item this afternoon is the statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services, an update on COVID-19. I call on the Minister, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for this opportunity to update Members about what continues to be a very serious public health situation. Since the Senedd was recalled before Christmas, the situation in Wales has changed. The omicron wave has arrived, as predicted, and is causing large numbers of people to fall ill. This is disrupting our public services, particularly the NHS, at the busiest time of the year.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll start by setting out the public health situation in terms of the latest facts and figures. Just before Christmas, when delta was the dominant form of the virus, the case rate was high but steady at around 500 cases per 100,000 people. The arrival of omicron has caused rates to accelerate to levels not seen before in the pandemic. We saw rates exceed 2,300 cases per 100,000 people last week; yesterday, there were 1,780. But we should be careful before assuming that we've peaked and the worst is over. Case numbers will be affected by the changes in the testing regime and the fact that we no longer require everyone who tests positive on a lateral flow test to take a confirmatory PCR test. This change in testing means we must rely on a broader range of measures to understand the nature of the wave.

The proportion of cases testing positive remains at around 50 per cent. The latest results of the Office for National Statistics infection survey suggest one in 20 people is infected, and our own data on hospitalisations shows the number of COVID-19 admissions continuing to rise, although numbers are much lower than in previous waves. The total number of people in hospital with COVID-19 is now just over 1,000—the highest level since 11 March. But it could be another week before we see cases peak.

There's some hopeful evidence that omicron is less severe than delta, but the rise in hospital numbers and the speed at which it's travelling continues to give cause for concern. We knew the case numbers would rise very fast, we knew that this would put the NHS under pressure, and it would also put other public services under pressure and put pressure on staffing in commercial and retail businesses. The latest figures show staff absences across the NHS, as a result of COVID, self-isolation and other illnesses, running at just over 8 per cent last week, but in some NHS organisations it's more than double this. Unfortunately, this means some appointments and treatments are being postponed and staff are being transferred to work in urgent and emergency services. Other parts of the public sector have reported similar levels and are putting in motion civil contingency plans to move staff to protect essential services.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we took early action to introduce protective measures to keep Wales safe and to keep Wales open, in line with advice from our technical advisory group and the UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. We are at alert level 2 and we've strengthened guidance to support people to stay safe in their own homes. We keep the situation and the alert level 2 measures under constant review. We have made some additional changes, firstly to the self-isolation rules, reducing the period of self-isolation from 10 to seven days for those people who have two consecutive negative lateral flow tests on days 6 and 7. The decision to change the self-isolation period reflects the latest evidence on how long people can transmit the virus for and supports essential public services and supply chains over the winter, while still limiting the spread of the virus. The first change to the testing regime means that people who are unvaccinated contacts of positive cases and are self-isolating for 10 days should now take a lateral flow test on day 2 and day 8, instead of a PCR test.

And, together with the other UK nations, we have agreed that, if a person has a positive lateral flow test, they will no longer be advised to have a follow-up PCR test to confirm the result, unless they are in a clinically vulnerable group or have been advised to do so as part of a research or surveillance programme. We believe that this change will reduce the demand for PCR tests by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent.

Without a follow-up PCR test, it is even more important for people to report the result of every lateral flow test they undertake and to self-isolate as soon as they test positive. If this isn't done, contact tracing will not be possible, so we will be unable to give the support that some people need. We need everyone to continue to play their part in disrupting the transmission of COVID-19 by reporting their lateral flow test results on the gov.uk website or by phoning 119.

Last week, I reluctantly agreed to remove the requirements for fully vaccinated travellers and those under 18 years of age to take a pre-departure test and a day 2 PCR test when arriving in the UK. All fully vaccinated travellers will need to take a lateral flow test on day 2 and, if this test is positive, a follow-up PCR test will need to be undertaken to enable genomic sequencing to be carried out. The requirement to self-isolate until a negative test has been reviewed has also been removed, but we are considering introducing guidance that those should continue to self-isolate until they've had a test. The requirements for non-vaccinated travellers remain unchanged.

The fact that the UK Government is reopening international travel so swiftly does cause us concern, given the concerns about the risk of importing new variants and adding additional pressure on our health services. Day 2 PCR testing acts as something of a surveillance system for international travel. If we had retained the requirement for a day 2 PCR test, we may have been alerted to the presence of omicron earlier.

Llywydd, the latest analysis published by the UK Health Security Agency about omicron shows that there is a substantial reduction in the risk of hospitalisation after three doses of the vaccine as compared to those who are unvaccinated. Sadly, the majority of people with COVID-19 who are being cared for in our critical care units at the moment are those who haven't been vaccinated. Vaccination remains the best protection available.

Our booster vaccination take-up rates are impressive. More than 1.7 million people in Wales have received their booster. We reached our aim of offering all eligible adults a booster by the end of the year, thanks to the magnificent efforts of all the staff and volunteers in our NHS teams. Hundreds of thousands of people will be offered boosters this month too, so please do make this your priority.

We have also seen more people coming forward for their first and second doses of the vaccine over the last month, and it's never too late to be vaccinated here in Wales. We are now approaching what we think will be the peak stage of this wave of cases. We all have a part to play in combating this latest worrying stage of the pandemic that has interrupted our lives to such an extent. I urge everyone to have the vaccine when offered, to observe the restrictions in force, to take lateral flow tests and to report the results. These actions, along with all of the other protections we have in place in Wales, will help to slow the spread of the virus, to reduce the harm to people and communities, and to keep us all safe. Thank you very much.

Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd, and can I wish you a happy new year, and the Minister and all Members as well? Let's hope 2022 is a good year.

Thank you for your statement today, Minister. Can I also thank you for your briefings that you provided to me and other colleagues today with your officials? I think they're particularly very helpful, so greatly appreciated. I note that recent research by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies suggests that you're twice as likely to catch COVID shopping than in a cinema, and going to the pub carries the same risk as going on public transport. So, I suppose I'm pointing that out in the context of the current set of restrictions and the fact that the impact of restrictions is having potentially less of an impact due to the prevalence of the virus in communities. So, I hope you understand the context of the point there. But can I ask: do you still believe, Minister, that COVID passes have been successful? What are your criteria for ending the passes, and when will you be in a position to provide the evidence that COVID passes in Wales have been successful or not successful, as the case may be?

The threat, of course, Minister, to the economy and public services grinding to a halt is just as grave as the virus itself, in part due to the self-isolation rules. The latest data shows that 1.4 per cent of NHS staff are self-isolating—that's the highest level since April last year, yet fairly consistent with the rates this time last year. It's very welcome, Minister, as you mentioned in your statement itself, that Wales has now introduced a lower self-isolation period of seven days. Now, I'd seek your views on reducing this period further. I note that the UK Health Security Agency is looking at the seven-day period being lowered, and, of course, I ask this in the context that, at some point, there will be no isolation period, as is the case virtually for all viruses. I appreciate we're not at that point yet, but that's the point that we will get to at some point; that's the context of the question.

You said in your statement, Minister, that some appointments and treatments are being postponed while staff are being transferred to work elsewhere. We know we've got large backlogs—one in five of the Welsh population on waiting lists, cancer diagnoses being missed. Now, I noticed that the shadow Minister for health in Westminster and your Labour colleague has expressed his support for using private hospitals to clear the backlog, and I'm pleased to hear that the English NHS has entered into arrangements with private providers. So, can I ask: will you follow your Westminster colleague's view to do whatever it takes to tackle the backlog? Can I ask how far along you are with regional surgical hubs since your announcement last year? Effectively, when are we going to see them, I suppose?

Diolch yn fawr, Russell, and a happy new year to you, and it's good to see everybody back, although obviously we all hope to be together in the Chamber once we're out of this particular wave. We're all hoping that this year is going to be better than last year and certainly we're hoping that we'll see an end to this particular wave very, very shortly.

I was also struck by the statements, both in the SAGE report and in our own TAC report, that suggested that shopping, actually, was responsible for quite a lot of the spread of the virus. I think the difference in terms of the restrictions we've got in place that demand, for example, that people need to show a COVID pass to go into cinemas compared to shopping is that you don't have to go to a cinema, whereas, actually, it's very difficult to live without food, and you do need to go shopping for that. So, that's the significant difference in terms of why we've brought in measures in some places rather than in others.

We're obviously keen to see what measures we can put in place to make sure that the booster is also acknowledged on the COVID pass, if we're going to use that in future as a measure. What we do know is that the booster gives protection to people and has stopped significant numbers from going into hospital, as those reports have suggested. Of course, it is commonplace on the continent for people to be using these COVID passes and, of course, it has also been introduced in England now in some settings. So, I'm glad to see England following the lead of Wales once again.

In relation to the NHS, you've heard that about 8 per cent of NHS staff are self-isolating. I need to make it absolutely clear: we are not at the end of this COVID crisis yet. We are in a situation where we are getting to the top of the wave, so it does shock me rather that we keep on talking about what the future's going to look like. We are in the middle of the storm at the moment; now is not the time to talk about dismantling the protection measures we've put in place.

Having said that, we have to recognise that the number of people contracting the virus at the moment is having a huge impact on our ability to ensure that those public services are maintained, which is why we listened to the advice, and it was listening to specialist advice that suggested that we could reduce the self-isolation time from 10 to seven with a negative PCR on days 6 and 7. But, certainly, the advice that I've seen hitherto from the UK Health Security Agency suggests that it would be counter-productive to reduce further than seven days because, actually, you could be sending people back into the workplace and spreading the virus further. So, that was certainly their advice in the past; if they change their minds, then obviously we will need to look at that advice. So, we will be clinically led on this decision. I think it's worth noting that in the States, for example, where the requirement to self-isolate is for five days, that they start from a different point. So, they start from when they see the onset of symptoms, whereas we start at the point of testing, and there is a significant difference there. So, we just need to understand that.

Thank you, Minister, for today's statement. Yes, we are in a very uncertain situation. The numbers of positive cases are very high. We know that—I know from the experience of my entire family and from testing positive myself on Christmas Day how much community transmission there has been. But looking forward is what's important now. I know that the Minister wanted to strike a very serious tone with the statement today—and that's understandable, of course, it's a very difficult situation in several ways—but I think I would have liked to have seen greater attention being paid to the positive signs now because it's on those that we will be able to build, hopefully, and it's those, hopefully, as they become clearer, and as the light at the end of the tunnel becomes brighter, that should be guiding the decisions in coming days.

I'm very grateful to your officials who have given me two briefings over the past 24 hours. It's good to see the encouraging signs, the clear evidence about how much less likely individuals are to become very ill as a result of this variant as compared to delta and the good news in terms of the pressure on critical care units. There are also clear signs, it's important to say, that the regulations that have been in place over the past few weeks have been effective in general. I will raise some questions on some aspects of them in a moment.

But of course, because of the high number of positive cases—far greater than in any other wave,—we know that there is still a significant impact on health services. That's true in terms of the numbers of staff who are poorly, although many of them are missing work because of other reasons too—it's important to remember that. And on that point, may I ask why not make that decision now, as the RCN and others have asked, to provide FFP3 face masks for staff to safeguard them, to make it less likely that they will be impacted by the virus?

There's pressure too in terms of how many are COVID positive in hospitals that need to be treated differently as a result of that and the pressure that emanates from that. It's important to remember that it's a minority of COVID-positive patients who are in hospital because of problems with regard to COVID; some of them are there because they've broken their arm, for example, but they happen to be COVID positive. And it's clear too that there are other problems here, and we must bear that in mind. There's the unsustainability of the NHS—winter pressures, to give it another name—which is the main reason for the challenges in the NHS at the moment, and what the difficult COVID situation has done is exacerbate that. The result is that the pressure on health and care services, because of the omicron wave, is likely to continue for a long while yet. There is a need to be cautious, but there are signs that we are coming to the peak of the wave itself in terms of case numbers. Perhaps part of what we are seeing, in terms of positive cases starting to level off, is the result of the change in testing rules and the fact that fewer people are having a PCR test now. May I ask what steps the Government are taking to ensure that more people record positive LFT results? That’s very important.

Thank you very much, Rhun, and I’m pleased to see that you’re better after your experience of COVID. There are so many people who’ve been in the same situation as you over the festive period, so I’m pleased to see you back and that you’re safe and well. Certainly it is good to see that there are positive signs in terms of the direction of travel, particularly with regard to the numbers in our hospitals. So, that is a good sign.

In terms of the cases, it is good to see that the figures are coming down, but I do think that we need to be really careful about the figures at the moment. I don’t want to be too pessimistic; I want to be a realist, but there are some things that have changed recently that do suggest that we should take some time before we start celebrating that we have reached the peak of this wave. One of the reasons, of course, is that we have stopped asking people to go for PCR tests because they have to take an LFT and then they don’t have to take a PCR test. That perhaps has had an impact on the numbers. The schools have returned this week, so we don’t know yet what the impact on the numbers will be as a result of that. And also there's the situation in terms of sewage, as we monitor sewage, and that does give the impression that the cases are, if anything, increasing. So, we do want to be very careful before we start celebrating that we have reached the peak.

In terms of FFP3 face masks, I know that a great deal of research has been undertaken on this. We are keeping this under review and we are asking the experts about what the best way forward is, constantly, and if we should be taking this step. They are currently telling us that we don’t need to take that step because there are pros and cons: they are much more uncomfortable, they are much more difficult to deal with. So, there are reasons for not taking that step. That's why we are waiting for advice from the experts in this field.

In terms of the unsustainability of the NHS, one of the things that I'm very eager to do is to learn the lessons from COVID. One of those lessons that we've seen is that COVID has hit people in different communities in different ways. So, we do need to do a great deal more to focus on prevention, to ensure that the inequality in our communities is eradicated. Of course, we would be eager to see more people recording the result of their lateral flow tests, and that's something that I wanted to underline in the press statement today.

In terms of how soon we can dismantle some of those regulations, well, of course we're eager to do this as soon as possible. We're very aware that these restrictions are having a damaging impact on a great many people, businesses and individuals. We will take that opportunity as soon as we think it's safe to do so. The First Minister has already asked for advice on the options in terms of how to lessen the regulatory burden as soon as possible, and what the options are in that direction. That work is already being done.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. From my experience, I think the vast majority of the population in Wales very much support the Welsh Government's rightly cautious approach to COVID-19, and they're very grateful that they live in Wales so that they're protected in that way. I hear what you say, Minister, about the balance of understanding the current course of the virus and wanting to ease protections as soon as it's safe to do so. In that context, and the context of the weekly review—and, I think, next week a three-weekly review—I just wonder, Minister, if there's anything you can say about some of the requests for easing at the moment spectator sport, for example, and indeed the parkrun. I think parkruns in particular have a very strong case, as I'm sure you've recognised, because they're very much a public health initiative in themselves, and of course they're open air, and they're very well organised, and they've got a very good safety record. Understandably, the organisers understand the importance of making sure that people get into good habits early in the year, particularly in January, when people are making new year's resolutions, and so on. If they do decide to get more physically active, then that may benefit their health not just in the short term, but if they continue the habits, long into the future for the rest of their lives. So, it's a very important balance, and I know that some of the decisions that you and Government colleagues have to take are very finely balanced, Minister. But I just wonder if there's anything you can say in terms of if the course of the virus does allow some easing of restrictions, would parkruns and spectator sports be at the front of the queue, so to speak.

Thanks very much, John. Of course, we've had countless requests to relax our regulations in relation to spectator sports, and we completely understand that. We're all very keen to see if it is possible to dismantle these before the six nations tournament. Obviously we're going to keep things very closely under review, and if possible, we will do everything we can to see if we can make that happen. Just in terms of spectator sport, obviously I think it does make a difference whether things are being held indoors or outdoors, so I think that is something we need to consider. On parkruns, I just think it is probably worth noting that there are plenty of people doing parkruns. This is a particular event, which is an international organisation. They have a way of doing things. We have suggested to them, 'Why don't you just break these people up into groups of 50? Then you could actually do it', but the organisers haven't wanted to do things in that way. So, we've given them that option, but they're the people who've decided that they don't want to do it in that way. So, I think there has got to be a bit of give and take here, because the flexibility is there, if they wanted to take advantage of that. I think you're right, John, we've all made our new year's resolutions, we've all said that we're all going to get fitter, we're going to eat better and all of those things that we all promise to do at the beginning of the year. I am sure that, in those options that have been requested by the First Minister, that option of easing restrictions on outdoor sporting events is likely to be one of the first contenders.

Thank you for your statement this afternoon, Minister, and for addressing members of the health committee earlier today, at lunchtime—and a happy new year, of course. Thankfully, of course, according to many experts, we're in a transition from a pandemic to an endemic. While we learn to live with this disease, we must redouble efforts to protect the most vulnerable, those living in our care homes. Thankfully, the vaccines appear to be holding their own against the omicron variant, at least when it comes to hospitalisations and deaths. Minister, thanks to an amazing job by all involved in the vaccine roll-out, from the UK and Welsh Governments to the army of volunteers at our mass vax centres, over half the UK population have been boosted to date. However, we still have a large percentage of care home staff yet to be boosted—as many as one in four. We also have one out of every 10 care home residents yet to receive their third jab. Minister, when will all care home staff and residents be boosted, and will you make this a top priority? And what additional measures are you proposing to protect care home residents, going forwards? Finally, Minister, as well as vaccines, our care home staff need additional protections because they can't work from home. Will you ensure that all care home staff are provided with the best possible PPE, such as FFP3 masks? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Gareth. Obviously, we are really keen to make sure that we protect the most vulnerable, but we need to make sure also that they have the opportunity, for example, to meet their loved ones. We're trying to get the balance right between protecting them and, for example, allowing visitors into care homes. It is a really difficult balance, because I'm sure, Gareth, you'd be one of the first to complain if we saw omicron being introduced into care homes as well as a result of visitors. So, we have got to get that balance right, and it is difficult to get that right. But, we've got to remember that these care homes actually exist in our communities and our communities, at the moment, are trying to deal with a very high rate of COVID.

Certainly when it comes to vaccination figures, 90 per cent of care home residents, I'm pleased to say, have received their booster. That's a very significant protection measure for them. When it comes to the staff, I think one of the things you need to consider and to remember is that, if you've had COVID, you are not allowed to have the vaccination for 28 days. So, there may be a period where people will not be able to get the boosters. We'll just make sure that we follow those up constantly. We're very, very keen, obviously, to make sure that those care home staff, as many as possible, are supported. And certainly healthcare staff, 92 per cent of them, generally, have had a second dose. So, we're up at pretty high levels of protection. We've also got to remember that, when it comes to care home staff, there is a more transient group of people who work in those settings. There will be some people coming in and leaving, and so we've just got to bear that in mind, that it may mean that that's slightly different from the levels that you may see in other sectors.

When it comes to PPE, you'll be aware that we have literally given millions upon millions of pieces of PPE to care homes. We've helped them with that protection all the way through this pandemic. And, again, if the evidence suggests that we should be using more protective measures, like the FFP3 masks that you were suggesting, then obviously we'll consider that. But, at the moment, we are not being advised to do that.

Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and happy new year. You will be aware of the evidence that my colleague Liz Saville Roberts, the Member of Parliament for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in Westminster, has put forward, and the evidence put forward by my colleague here, Rhys ab Owen, of their experiences in talking about their loved ones with dementia and living in care homes in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Everyone understands fully the need to control the infection and to safeguard public health. As you mentioned in response to Gareth Davies, it's a matter of striking a balance, but I'm afraid in this case the balance is incorrect. Groups of people who have particular needs have different rules when it comes to visits. If you consider mothers and newborns, for example, it's possible for them to ensure that partners are part of the birthing process. There is room to argue therefore that we should have the same kind of exceptions for patients with dementia, for example. These people are being excluded from the love of their loved ones, and that's contrary to some of their greatest needs. So, will you look again at the guidelines and ensure that the loved ones of patients of this kind have access to homes, so that they can spend vital time in the company of their loved ones?

Thank you very much, Mabon. I'm very aware of the situation and how difficult it is for those who are suffering dementia who don't understand exactly what is going on, and why they can't see their loved ones. But the fact is that our guidelines are clear. We have made it entirely clear that we expect care homes to allow people to visit, especially if they are a very close family member. The guidelines are very clear. The problem that we have here is that some of the care homes that are privately run, they say that they don't want these guidelines to apply in their case, and they are concerned perhaps in some cases that their insurance, for example, wouldn't protect them if there were to be a situation if COVID were to be introduced into that care home. So, our guidelines are as clear as they can be: people should be able to visit their loved ones. But that's where the issue arises, because the majority of the care homes are private care homes that have private insurance, and they then make that decision.

The public health position in Wales today still remains fragile; an estimated one in 20 citizens infected, cases testing positive around 50 per cent and, as a direct consequence, staff absences across the Welsh NHS running at just over 8 per cent last week, with some trusts double this. So, it's no surprise then that the Aneurin Bevan health board in Gwent has decreed essential-only hospital visits for patients. Minister, it is never too late to be vaccinated in Wales. Indeed, we know that vaccination makes a fundamental difference, and that is why 1.7 million Welsh residents have already received their booster jabs. What can the Welsh Government, Minister, do to promote, publicise and make available more walk-in vaccination clinics, such as those being held today at the Pontllanfraith mass vaccination centre in Islwyn, and what more can the Welsh Government do to reach those who currently remain unvaccinated to convince them of the advantages that vaccinations offer to themselves, their families and to all of us? Diolch.

Thanks very much, Rhianon. You're absolutely right that the pressure the NHS is under at the moment is truly extraordinary, which is why, of course, we're trying to direct people to get the right help at the right time in the right place. We're directing people to use the 111 service. There are online services that people can use. They can use their local pharmacies for some ailments. And so, we're trying to take as much pressure off the NHS staff as we possibly can.

In terms of vaccination centres, we're thrilled to bits with the incredible achievement over the three weeks. To vaccinate, to boost 1.3 million people in such a short space of time is something that we shouldn't take for granted. It is truly a feat that we should all be incredibly proud of. I'm not sure if that could happen anywhere else in the world without the kind of NHS that we've learnt to grow and love. Just in terms of the vaccination clinics, they are now available in every health board. So, there is a facility, and if people want to know where they can go for their vaccinations, they should look at the website for their health board—that will direct you to where you can go.

In terms of the unvaccinated, the good news is that, actually, as a result of the booster programme and the big campaign and the publicity campaign around that, actually what we've seen is an increase in the number of people coming forward for their first doses and their second doses. So, we are pleased to see that figure just edging up constantly, because that is the best protection that we can give to people. So, we are very pleased to see that that's happening, but we will continue that outreach, as we have done throughout the vaccination programme.

How do you respond to concern raised with me by deaf community representatives in north Wales about the lack of information in British sign language on the official website on how to take lateral flow tests and PCR tests, where, as they state, if their members are struggling, even with their assistance, then others must be also?

Concern was also raised with me by constituents after the announcement 12 days ago that the Welsh Government had agreed to loan 4 million lateral flow tests to the UK Government, which deals with distribution for the whole of the UK, where they had unsuccessfully attempted to find lateral flow tests in chemists and distribution centres open in four Flintshire and Denbighshire towns. How do you therefore respond to their statement that this lack of availability was not compatible with Mark Drakeford's statement that we have more than a greater supply to meet our needs, and to the subsequent statement yesterday that, although they have now managed to source lateral flow tests, staff and customers at the pharmacies they went to during their search for these the previous week told them that it was viewed as luck if one managed to get them?

Thanks very much, Mark. I'll take up your point about the facilities for deaf people. I want to make sure that those are addressed, so I'll certainly take that away and see if our officials are able to give some clearer advice on that.

In relation to the lateral flow tests, I think that it is important, where we can—. You know, we're party that believes in the United Kingdom, and there are times when we'll be asking for support from the United Kingdom Government, and on this occasion, they were asking for our support.

There's a huge difference, Mark, between supply and distribution. So, there's not a problem with supply—there's plenty of supply—the issue has been with distribution. Now, when it comes to pharmacies, the responsibility for distribution to the pharmacies is with the UK Government. So, I would suggest, Mark, that you have a word with your colleagues in Westminster and tell them to pull their finger out and to make sure that we can get access to those lateral flow tests in our pharmacies. We're putting pressure on, but it would be very helpful, Mark, if you could speak to your counterparts in your party and ask them to put pressure on the Tory Government to make sure that there is a better system of distribution. The supply in Wales is fine. The distribution is the problem, and when it comes to pharmacy distribution, that is the responsibility of the UK Government.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Minister, for the statement today. I'd like to add to your thanks to the healthcare workers for their heroic work, and I'd like to extend my thanks to unpaid carers for everything that they're doing at the moment.

In terms of free LFTs, is it possible to have confirmation that they will continue to be available free of charge in Wales, regardless of what happens in England? This is something that unpaid carers have raised with me as a concern, because they're very dependent on them in terms of being able to do everything within their ability to safeguard their loved ones from the virus.

Also, an issue that I have raised with you before, namely COVID passes for individuals who can't be vaccinated or who can't take an LFT—can we have an update, please, in terms of when this work will be completed, to give assurance to those individuals who currently can't live their full lives within the restrictions, because they can't access a pass?

Thank you very much, Heledd. You are correct: heroic work has been done by all kinds of people over the past few weeks—in terms of carers, those who work for health services, and particularly those unpaid carers who work on all of our behalf. The fact is, if they weren't there, we as a Government would have to step into the breach, or local government would have to do that work for them. So, we always want to express our thanks to those unpaid carers.

In terms of those lateral flow tests, I was genuinely surprised that the UK Government had raised this issue in the middle of the pandemic when we were at the peak of a wave. If you want to create a situation where people rush out to try to get hold of as many LFTs as possible, when it's difficult to source them—. It was incredible that they'd considered doing that at this time. So, no, there are no plans for us to charge for LFTs.

In terms of the COVID passes, I think I said before Christmas that detailed work is being done on this issue. I said at that time that it's the same people who are working on this issue as have been working on other issues, such as the testing regime, so at the moment they are in the middle of that particular storm, so I would ask you to be a little more patient for a while yet, so we can come to the end of this particular push to get people vaccinated. And certainly, I will follow up once again. I know, Heledd, that this is a really important issue for you, and certainly, we haven't lost sight of it either, but at the moment it's the same people doing both jobs of work.

I'm grateful to you, Minister, for the statement and your answers this afternoon, which I think have set a lot of minds at rest. In answer to a question from Russell George at the beginning of the session, you said that it wasn't the time to discuss dismantling our regulations, if you like, when you're at the centre of a storm. I would argue that that is exactly the right time to discuss the way forward, as it happens, because when we're seeking to persuade a population to abide by particular regulations, I think we have to be able to draw a route-map for people as we go through this storm, as we go through these regulations. I think the points about a route-map were well made by the leader of the opposition, actually, earlier this afternoon as well.

So, I'd like to understand from the Government where you see this going at the moment. Now, I'm not asking you to make predictions, but I'm asking you to be a little bit more clear, if you like. What metrics are the Government using in order to inform its decisions? It appears to be hospitalisations rather than infection levels. Infection levels are very, very high, and so have positivity rates been. But we haven't seen changes to regulations as a consequence of that. So, I assume we're looking at hospitalisations as a consequence. Is that the case? At which point would a particular number of people being hospitalised trigger additional regulations, or reductions in hospitalisations trigger a reduction in regulations? I think it would be useful for us to understand the Government's thinking on that.

The final point, Presiding Officer, I'd like to make, is on the role of the COVID passes in terms of reducing the regulations we have at the moment. Like others, I would like to see a far greater number of freedoms in terms of outdoor activities, and I have to say I'm not overly convinced by some of the Government's arguments on some of the outdoor activities. I'm not sure the Government has made its case on that. But certainly, in terms of enabling people to meet and to attend events and activities, the COVID pass was before Christmas, in the autumn, when we had our debates on this, the means of enabling people to do that with a level of safety. I agree with that argument. I think the COVID pass was a good measure in order to promote and to ensure public safety whilst enabling people to enjoy a level of freedom, and I would like to see the COVID pass being used as part of a step-down from regulations where we are today, in order to ensure that the maximum number of people can enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, commensurate with the overriding requirement to maintain a priority of public health. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Alun. Obviously, we do have a kind of route-map out of this in the sense that we already have the levels that are in place, so there's no reason why we couldn't just move down the levels pretty quickly. We don't even need to move to level 1; maybe that we could move directly to level zero, or it may be that we would like to go even faster, and it may be that we would want to introduce some relaxations quicker than others. So, all of those things have been things that the First Minister now has asked for some advice on, so that we can see a way out of this.

In terms of what metrics we'll be using, well, we've always used as a metric the pressure on the NHS and we wouldn't want to see the NHS being overwhelmed. So, obviously hospitalisations—there's good news on hospitalisations, so that's a relief. I guess the pressure on the NHS at the moment is actually coming from absenteeism, so that's where the pressure is at the moment, at a time, let's not forget, when the NHS is under significant pressure, so this time of year is always difficult, but to try and cope with this at a time when you've got 8 per cent of your staff off—. And let's not forget, it's not over yet, so we just need to make sure that we are getting those up-to-date absentee figures. So, I think those two things are going to be pretty key in terms of making our determination.

And when it comes to the COVID pass, I think that the COVID pass gave people a measure of confidence, actually, that, actually, it was a bit safer to go out. I think they want to know that the people around them are taking it seriously, and knowing that other people around you have been vaccinated or have been boosted—certainly in terms of the e-mails I was receiving, it was very interesting to see the number of people saying, 'Right, I will go to the cinema. I wasn't happy to go before now.' But very interesting, and certainly, from the response I had from one cinema, saying: 'We've never had it so good.' It was really interesting; that was the difference. I don't know if that's still the case, but certainly, at the time, delta was the dominant variant, and certainly, that's the position at the moment.

Finally, Laura Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, happy new year. My colleagues Gareth, Russell and Mark have comprehensively asked most of what I wanted to cover, and our shared concerns, and Alun Davies too, who I don't often find myself agreeing with. However, on this case, I do, and I'd like to reiterate calls for that road map out of restrictions. There does need to be more of a comprehensive road map out of them, and there also needs to be something that—. The citizens of Wales are now crying out for some sort of goal to work towards, so I'd just like to reiterate that.

Also, just quickly on parkruns, I think from my discussions with them, I think it's the amount of extra volunteers needed. That's the problem when you want to try and split them up into groups of 50.

I want to ask you on face masks, if I may, Minister. I spoke to Dr Rob Orford, chief scientific adviser, this morning, about the need for masks in classrooms all day—not just around schools, in classrooms—and this decision, as we know, and the need to balance the harm, the balance of harms with this decision—. As we know, many headteachers and our children will have told you, too, the disruption to learning it causes, as well as the obvious impact on mental health, communication, and how uncomfortable it is. And also, as Altaf, my colleague, raised this morning, wearing the same mask all day long; I'm sure not sure how good that is. It'll be interesting to see your viewpoint on how much work and guidance has been done on that, and how they're disposed—how we dispose of masks in schools. I thought it was a very valid point raised by Altaf this morning. I was encouraged too by Dr Orford's response and acknowledgement of the detrimental effect masks in classrooms all day has on children and the need to remove them as soon as possible.

So, Minister, due to the figures that we are seeing, and the evidence that we've seen of South Africa and London, that we are sort of nearing that peak now here in Wales, how much longer do you foresee that we might have to have that restriction still in the guidance, to keep masks on in schools all day long? And do you have a date that you'd like to end that particular restriction? I know in England, it's 26 January. I was just wondering if you had a particular date in mind for people to work towards, and also how you're balancing mask wearing with ventilation, adaptations and testing in our schools. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Laura, and certainly, what we do know is that face covering in classrooms is not something we ideally want to see. We know that it's uncomfortable, we know that the children's commissioner, for example, is very unhappy about the need to do that, but also recognised that there are some exceptional circumstances, and that actually now was an exceptional circumstance. The rates are so incredibly high that we just need to make sure we understand that.

The other thing, of course, to bear in mind in relation to schools is that there is a local infection decision control framework, many schools have introduced one-way systems and seating plans for older learners, they've staggered the start and end times of the day and that actually we've distributed 30,000 carbon dioxide monitors to our schools and given £3.3 million for ventilation controls. So, we are taking this seriously. I know schools are taking it very seriously.

I think your points about masks are very well made, which is why we do need to think not just about some of the points you made, but also about making sure that they fit well, because that makes a huge difference in terms of spread as well. We haven't got a date that is clear at the moment. We've learnt from the mistakes made in England that if you set a date and then you have to change it you just look a bit stupid. So, we don't want to be in that situation. So, what we will do is to continue our approach, which is the three-weekly reviews, which has now been reduced to a weekly review. Of course, we want to get rid of them as soon as we possibly can, as soon as it's safe to do so. We recognise this is not a comfortable situation for children, and obviously we will try and dismantle that particular restriction as soon as we possibly can.

Thank you, Minister.

We have a procedural motion. First of all, the motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow items 6 and 7 to be debated. I call on the Trefnydd to move that motion.

Formally.

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

In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the three motions under items 5, 6 and 7 on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) Regulations 2021, will be grouped for debate but with votes taken separately. If there are no objections to that, we can move on and have that debate on the three sets of regulations.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Eluned Morgan, to move the motions. Thank you.

Llywydd, I move the motions before us. As the First Minister set out last week, omicron is now the dominant form of the virus in Wales and cases have been rising sharply. Cases are far higher now than they were at the peak of the previous waves. Omicron is already putting significant pressure on the NHS at the busiest time of year, not just from rising hospital admissions, but through staff absences. Staff sickness levels are similarly rising in other public services. Before us today are three sets of amendment regulations. These stem from Cabinet having moved to a weekly review of the coronavirus regulations following the arrival and spread of the omicron variant.

Firstly, No. 22 amendments from 11 December clarified face masks must be worn in theatres, cinemas and concert halls. They also made face coverings a legal requirement during professional driving lessons and practical tests in Wales. From 15 December, prior recovery or natural immunity was removed as a way of demonstrating COVID-19 status for the purposes of the COVID pass.

Secondly, before us today are the No. 23 amendments. From 20 December, these placed a legal duty on employers to allow their employees to work from home where this would be a reasonable measure to take, and on employees to do the same where practicable. The importance of working from home as a mitigation measure has been set out repeatedly by SAGE and TAG. This is particularly important when case rates in the community are high. Contacts in the workplace can be a significant driver of transmission. A specific duty on the individual is intended to support employees by providing them with the requirement to point to if there is a dispute with an employer who is making people go to work when it is not necessary or reasonable. This is not a new provision; it was formerly a legal requirement up until July 2020 with the same sanctions applying then as now. We're not aware of any fixed-penalty notices being issued to individuals throughout the whole period that this was in law during 2020. It is expected that the same proportionate approach will be taken by enforcement bodies of educating and advising individuals prior to taking any enforcement actions. I think it's worth saying that if these are not supported, then these regulations will cease to have effect from the end of today and there will be fewer measures in place to protect workers.

Members will be aware that Wales moved to alert level 2 on Boxing Day. These changes were made through the No. 25 regulations before us today. These include a general requirement for businesses to put measures in place to ensure social distancing of 2m in all regulated premises, including workplaces where that is reasonable. There is a rule of six for gatherings in pubs and restaurants and in cinemas and theatres. Every regulated and licensed premises must take appropriate measures to safeguard customers and staff, including table service. Face coverings are a requirement in hospitality areas at all times, apart from when people are seated. Large events are not allowed; the maximum number of people who can gather at an indoor event is 30, with 50 in open-air venues, and it's a requirement for nightclubs to close.

I can assure Members that we don't take these steps lightly. The omicron wave, however, has provided further evidence that this pandemic is not over. These measures are important to safeguard Wales. Thank you, Llywydd.

I call now on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Minister. We considered these regulations at our meeting yesterday, and our reports to the Senedd containing merits reporting points on each of these regulations were laid immediately afterwards.

Now, sometimes, I'm aware that colleagues occasionally find our observations a little dry as we try to shed light, rather than heat, but bear with us, as we hope that our comments will help this Senedd in its job of scrutiny and help the Government by improving the legislation and the regulations and the explanations it brings forward.

Now, our reports on these regulations raise what Members will now recognise as quite familiar merits points under Standing Order 21.3, namely the highlighting of any potential interference with human rights and the lack of formal consultation. We have acknowledged the Welsh Government's justification in relation to these points, as set out in the explanatory memoranda.

Now, further to these reporting points, we have also identified additional reporting points for the No. 22 and No. 23 regulations. With regard to the No. 22 regulations, we noted that there is no equality impact assessment. We therefore asked the Welsh Government to explain what arrangements it has made in respect of these regulations to publish reports of equality impact assessments in accordance with regulation 8(1)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011.

In addition, and as stated in the No. 22 regulations, from 15 December 2021, natural immunity as a way of demonstrating COVID-19 status was removed for the purposes of the COVID pass. The explanatory memorandum to the regulations states that

'summary impact assessments have been published previously which include impacts relating to face coverings.'

However, no reference is made to equality impact assessments relating to regulation changes that exclude natural immunity as a way of demonstrating COVID-19 status for the purposes of the COVID pass.

Now, the Welsh Government has now confirmed that an updated impact assessment will be published shortly, and we welcome that. But, given that these regulations have been in force since mid December, as we speak, we hope that the Minister will agree with us that these updates should be published, where they can, in a more timely fashion and, indeed, that this will be done in future, wherever possible.

So, in relation to the exclusion of prior recovery, i.e. natural immunity, the explanatory memorandum notes that this purpose

'is justified on public health grounds'

as well as representing

'a strengthening of the requirements as previously proposed by the Technical Advisory Group and is supported by the Chief Medical Officer.'

However, there is no reference made to the evidence on which the Welsh Government has relied to make this provision. So, we therefore asked the Welsh Government to set out the evidence that shows that excluding natural immunity as a way of demonstrating COVID-19 status for the purposes of the COVID pass is, in quotes, 'justified on public health grounds'.

The Welsh Government has, and we thank them for this, since shared further information with us, including the minutes of the SAGE 99 meeting held on 16 December 2021, and which is noted in our report. So, Minister, in welcoming that additional information, we just respectfully and gently remind Welsh Government that, if we have more fulsome and early information in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the regulations when laid before the Senedd, it would be beneficial to scrutiny and helpful to all of us.

We also sought a response from the Welsh Government with regard to two merits points raised in our report on the No. 23 regulations, which, as Members will know, change the provisions around working from home. Again, we asked the Welsh Government to explain what arrangements it has made in respect of these regulations to publish reports of equality impact assessments in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011.

In addition, the explanatory memorandum accompanying the No. 23 regulations states, and I quote,

'summary impact assessments are in preparation which will include impacts relating to working from home.'

However, it is unclear whether these assessments will include an equality impact assessment. As these assessments are yet to be published, the public, as well as the Senedd, are also unable to assess the equalities impact of the new provision being introduced by these regulations.

Can I say, Minister, I think it is entirely unacceptable at this point in the pandemic that we are voting on these regulations retrospectively? This was, of course, understood nearly two years ago at the beginning of the pandemic, but we are now in a virtual meeting, where meetings can be requested more easily, and we are now in a position where the regulations should be debated first before the regulations come into being. We also, I think, need to see the scientific evidence that's behind the regulations being provided much earlier, not late as they have been in the instance of these regulations as well.

And there are a number of anomalies, I think, in the current set of regulations, Minister. There's been quite a bit of discussion today on parkruns, for example, during First Minister's questions and the last item as well. I think a ban on outdoor events, such as parkruns, which attract over and above 50 people as a maximum attendance, as you've set out, is inappropriate. I've heard, Minister, your explanation in the previous item, but other Members mentioned the practicalities in regard to overcoming some of the issues. You, I think, Minister, in the last item, talked about there being some give and take from the organisers. Well, I would suggest there's give and take from you, Minister, in regard to the regulations and in regard to the review of the regulations later this week. I hear what you say in regard to parkruns, Minister, but I think it is absurd that in a recent Caerphilly rugby match, there were 50 spectators on the touchline, but 140 in the clubhouse. So, this points to significant aspects of the regulations not being proportionate. And, of course, these regulations, especially in regard to outdoor sporting events, have a significant impact on people's mental health and well-being as well. Of course, I point out today that restrictions on large outdoor events in Scotland will come to an end from Monday.

The last technical advice group evidence was published on 17 December, which doesn't quite take into account the evidence coming out now. We, as Welsh Conservatives, Minister, will not be supporting these regulations today. There are quite a number of aspects of the regulations that we do support, particularly in regard to the various requirements for face masks and other aspects as well. You will be aware, Minister, that we've previously supported the vast majority of the Welsh Government's regulations, even though we've had concerns about aspects of those regulations, but I'm afraid, on this occasion, there are more anomalies that, on balance, make it not appropriate for the Welsh Conservatives to give their support to the regulations.

You've outlined, Minister, that if these regulations are not supported today, the regulations will then cease and there'll be fewer restrictions in Wales. What I would say to that, Minister, is that the regulations need to come forward and be debated before they come into force, along with the scientific evidence being published at that time as well, and then we would not be in the position as you set out. Diolch.

Thank you for the opportunity to outline Plaid Cymru's views on these regulations. I will take them in order, starting with the easiest, the No. 22 regulations. I don't see that there is much that is contentious here; they are minor changes, in reality, in terms of some definitions around the COVID pass and the use of face coverings, and we're happy to support them. The only thing that I would highlight at this point, as I and others have done many times before over almost two years now, is that these regulations are ones that have been laid for over a month. They came into force exactly a month ago. Yes, there have been reasons throughout this pandemic why action has been taken quickly, but it reflects poorly democratically on us as a Senedd that we haven't had an opportunity to vote on these for a month after they've come into force. Practically, it doesn't matter as much with these regulations as we support them, as I've said.

But things aren't quite as straightforward with the second set, which are the No. 23 regulations. The central aim here—we're very happy with it—is the regulations on working from home. That made sense and it followed clear advice from scientific and technical advisers to the Government. But there are elements of these regulations that we're uncomfortable with, namely the element of the threat of fines for individual workers if they don't work from home where that is possible. For us, for the TUC—and I'm grateful for the work that the TUC has done on this—and for many people who have raised concerns about this, this is not acceptable. The First Minister explained that this provides safeguards to workers in some way, and I don't accept that viewpoint. He said that this reflects rules that were in force earlier in the pandemic. The Minister reiterated that today and we've heard that nobody has been penalised. Well, that doesn't justify what is unfair and unjust here in principle, I don't think. It's a matter of providing safety in the workplace. This is what we're talking about, and for us it's not acceptable to place the onus on individual employees to ensure their own safety in the workplace; it's the employer that should carry that responsibility. That's the reasonable basis for individuals relating to workplace safety. And whilst I don't want fines to be given to employers either—I want people to adhere to the regulations—it's right that the employer should face that threat of sanction if the regulations are not adhered to.

The Government has changed some of the guidance around these regulations, but the fundamental regulations remain as they were. So, as things stand, we will be voting against these regulations. However, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say. If we can be given clearer assurances that workers will not be penalised, that that threat will cease to exist and, more importantly, that new regulations will be drawn up as a matter of urgency that will place the onus on the employer rather than the employee—making that clear—then we would be willing to abstain in order to retain that centrally important element in terms of homeworking, although, of course, I do hope that we are approaching the lifting of that restriction too. But as I say, I will listen very carefully to the Minister's response.

Finally, I turn to the No. 25 regulations. These aren't simple either. We strongly support the core principle that raising the alert level was a sensible step to take in light of the evidence that we had at that time prior to Christmas in terms of the threat that we were facing, but there is an element of these regulations that we don't agree with—we raised that before they were introduced; it is something that I and others have raised a number of times today and it's been done across the political spectrum—and that's the number of people who can gather outdoors, including for sporting events. We don't believe that a maximum of 50 was proportionate, and being proportionate and appearing to be fair has to be an essential part of regulation. In responding to demands to scrap those requirements on allowing crowds in sports events, the Government said that the biggest factor, perhaps, with these events is not watching the match itself, but the things related to that—the numbers travelling on public transport or the numbers gathering in pubs before and after a game. Well, perhaps that is true with the major events—even with those, I would want to see the Government lifting restrictions as soon as possible so that we can continue with six nations matches, for example—but if we look at the lower levels in terms of sport—football matches, rugby matches at a local level or a national level that attract hundreds rather than tens of thousands of people—well, sorry, but the arguments regarding large-scale infections on public transport and in pubs clearly don't hold water in the same way.

It won't come as a surprise to the Minister that I have deep concerns relating to the fines on workers in regulation No. 23, and I’m not alone, of course—as Rhun ap Iorwerth highlighted, the TUC and other Members have raised concerns. As I set out when the Senedd was recalled, the Government’s memorandum of understanding shows quite clearly that the Government believes that the relationship is balanced between workers and employers, which is so far from the truth. There was a point made by the First Minister on the record during the recall debate that these fines give workers extra protection, and a hypothetical scenario was played out, and I quote directly from the Record here,

'they are able to say to the employer, "I cannot come to work on those terms, because, if I were to do so, I would be committing an offence, and you cannot put me in that position."'

With the greatest respect, I have to say this is a completely naive position. I could probably give several examples of how that conversation would actually play out from when I worked in minimum-wage jobs before coming to this place, but I appreciate, of course, we’re tight for time.

The Government is also emphasising the fact that no worker has been fined yet. This indicates to me that the Government doesn’t want workers to be fined in the first place, and if this is the case, then I’m struggling to understand why the Government wants to proceed with the fines on workers at all. To conclude, Llywydd, the onus should be on employers and not workers. The employer is responsible for workplace safety, and we’re not talking about a balanced relationship here.

The regulations and guidance brought forward by Government over the past almost two years have, generally, been widely supported, but this support is waning, and this is following the decision to prevent more than 50 people attending outdoor events. Coronavirus, from the common cold to COVID-19, does spread at this time of year because people are gathering indoors. But, under the current regulations, people can view matches on televisions in clubs and pubs, as we've already heard, but they can't watch a match in the open air. Now, one understands the need to regulate the major sporting events with thousands of people using public transport and going into pubs, as I mentioned myself during the autumn internationals. And one understands, of course, the need to regulate and control that. But, these current rules that prevent games such as Llanuwchllyn against Porthmadog in the football, for example, are regulations that are disproportionate and, as I said, they put at risk the wide-scale support for the regulations that there has been in the past. So, will you review this element and, as Llyr Gruffydd mentioned earlier today, look at increasing that maximum for attendance at open-air sporting events and participation in parkruns, and do so as soon as possible, please?

Firstly, I want to register my thanks to the Minister and also her team for all of their work at this very pressurised time. Thank you for your dedication to keeping us safe. I'm also grateful to you for your time in meeting with me. I just want to make a brief contribution to the discussion on amendment 23 to the COVID regulations.

I'm very much in line with contributions from Plaid Cymru here. As you know, I am concerned to see the Government continuing to pursue this amendment, which could see workers fined £60 for being in breach of this law. I would be happy to support the amendment with the fine on employees being removed whilst maintaining the penalties on the employers.

I have on the whole supported, and continue to support, the pragmatic approach this Government has taken, but I cannot support fining workers for a decision that is completely out of their control. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, Minister, and wondered if you could clarify if amendment 23 relates only to those requirements on individual workers to work from home, and not provisions to fine employers who do not make provisions for individuals to safely work from home. If these regulations were not to be approved by the Senedd, would the provision to fine employers be removed from the regulations?

Finally, will you commit to bringing forward amended regulations at the earliest possible opportunity that remove the provision to fine workers? Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The health Minister now to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you for that interesting debate. It's really important that we focus on the detail of some of the points that Members have set out today.

On the issue of outdoor sports, I just want to make it clear that we have heard very clearly the views of people in relation to outdoor sports, and I'm sure you heard me earlier on today suggest that we will, obviously, try and dismantle those rules as soon as it is safe to do so. Clearly, as we're heading towards the peak, this is not the time to do that.

I want to focus my response, if you don't mind, on regulation 23. I think it is important that Members understand that, as a Labour Government, we are absolutely keen to make sure that we've set measures in place that protect workers within our communities. It is important that Members note that, if there is no support for this particular regulation today, then those rules that have been in place for a month now will cease to have effect from the end of today. So, tomorrow there would be no explicit requirement to support people to work from home, and there will be fewer protections for workers in Wales. I hope that Members will reflect very carefully on this before casting their vote.

To answer specifically Jane Dodds's question, that fine for employers would also be removed from tomorrow. I think it is important to note again that this was a mitigating measure that has been set out repeatedly by both SAGE and TAG, and has been a baseline measure in guidance since we've moved to alert level 0. I want to emphasise that we've heard the concerns of Members about the fines on individual employees, but I would like to note that I believe that the way to resolve this is not to defeat the regulations today—it is to allow the regulations to pass and for discussions on these matters to continue. I'd like to make a commitment that, if the regulations go through, we will discuss further whether there should be further amendments to these points.

Having a specific duty on an individual is intended to support employees. I just want to make that point. That's why we've put them in place. It provides that reference in law should there be a dispute with an employer who is making people return to the workplace when it's not necessary nor reasonable.

If I could interrupt the Minister, I see that Rhun ap Iorwerth wishes to intervene. If the Minister is willing to take that intervention, I will allow it.

I'd be happy to do so.

Thank you, Minister, for taking this intervention. I do take what I have heard from the Minister there as a positive step, that she is willing to discuss this issue. I think one of our demands is that this should happen as a matter of urgency. Can we get a stronger commitment in terms of your willingness to move very quickly on this? Because I do think it is necessary, if there is a change that can be introduced, that that happens as soon as is possible and that the necessary legal advice is taken as a matter of urgency.

Rhun, I can give you that commitment, because we're hoping that we're getting to the peak and people, we hope, will be going back to work at some point very soon. So, if we're going to make any changes, then it makes sense to understand that we would have to make them very quickly in order for them to make any sense at all. So, I can give you that commitment.

I think what is important—and I note the points made by Luke—is the reality of what happens on the ground here, in terms of the power that employees have. I think it's really important for people to read the guidance. I hope that, if people are voting on this today, they have read the guidance, because the guidance makes it absolutely clear that all the pressure here is on employers, not employees, and the flexibility for employees is really quite great. And so I do hope that people who have hesitation here are doing it with the full knowledge of what is in that guidance, because that guidance is very clear and very specific, and I hope would give some assurances to people.

If I can, once again, cut across the Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies would like to make an intervention, if that's acceptable to the Minister.

Sure. Yes.

Minister, I thank you very much for that assurance. I'm not speaking as Chair of the committee here, I'm just speaking as a humble backbencher, but many of us are union members and have been since our earliest days there. I welcome the reassurances that she's just given in response to the question by Rhun about discussions, but also the focus on employers here, which I think is important. And on that basis, I really hope the Minister will agree with me that Rhun and others, and Jane and others, will be able to support these and have those urgent discussions, so that we clarify that the weight is on the employer, not on employees here.

I do hope that if people did feel able to support these measures today, they would then have the opportunity to really look at the detail of what we've set out in that guidance. Thank you for that intervention, Huw.

Certainly, what we've found is that we did have guidance in place, but as the threat of omicron became clearer, it was clear that we needed to strengthen the protections, because what we found was that the mobility data that we were seeing suggested that, actually, people weren't taking the 'work at home' guidance seriously. I do think it's important that people understand that the guidance for employees makes it absolutely clear that people can go to work for well-being reasons, and it provides advice to employees also to make sure that they understand that they can get additional support and advice from their unions or the trade union movement.

Currently, fixed-penalty notices can be issued in respect of any offence, and enforcement officers can issue a fine to a person who has committed an offence. But what concerns me is that, if the provision were to be removed in relation to working from home, it could unintentionally signal that the requirement to work from home is seen as somehow a lesser obligation to all other requirements in the regulations, and it could weaken that requirement to a point where it would no longer be effective. So, I would like to just reiterate the point that we've heard the views in terms of individuals being fined. We are committed to certainly look at this, but the way to resolve this, I would like to underline, is not to defeat the regulations today; it's to allow those regulations to go through, to allow that discussion to continue. I would urge Members to support the regulations before us today. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 5. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there is an objection, therefore we will defer voting on item 5 until voting time.

The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is again an objection. We will therefore defer voting on item 6.

And finally, the proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection, so we will defer that vote until voting time, too.

Item 8 has been postponed until 18 January.

We therefore move to item 9, which is our final item, on the LCM on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I call on the Minister for Education and Welsh Language to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion. I welcome this opportunity to explain the background of this LCM, and to outline why I recommend that the Senedd gives its consent to provision made in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I'm grateful to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for considering the LCM and for the report that they drew up in December. I welcome the correspondence with the committee Chair, and I hope that the responses respond to the questions raised by the committee. I'm also grateful to members of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration and the report published in November, and I note that the committee published a further report yesterday.

I welcome the conclusions and recommendations made by both committees, and I would like to discuss some of those points today. Specifically, I note that both committees consider that the consent of the Senedd is required for what was clause 35 of the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons, which is now clause 31. And I believe that the clause that we're discussing is clause 32 of the Bill, as amended in the Committee Stage in the House of Commons. I don't agree with that conclusion. The main provisions made by this clause relate to further education in England, and the provision made in relation to Wales only restates and explains existing law. These changes are consequential to the provision made for England.

Standing Order 29.1 makes an exception for related and consequential provisions, and supplementary and saving provisions, and in my view, the provision made in Wales by this clause is consequential to the provision made for England, and relates to an issue that is not within the legislative competence of the Senedd. So, this clause is not included in the legislative consent memoranda that I have tabled for consideration by the Senedd.

I note and accept both committees' concerns about the delays with laying the initial legislative consent memorandum, and the subsequent supplementary memoranda to the Bill. On this occasion, we did not have sight of all the provisions impacting Wales until just before the Bill was introduced to Parliament. Additionally, the UK Government's devolution analysis differed from our own, and this unfortunately resulted in protracted discussions to seek to resolve matters. I'm pleased that the UK Government has, however, responded positively to our requests for amendments, and I believe that the Bill, as amended at Commons Committee Stage, now respects devolved competence in the area of education.

The only clause requiring Senedd consent is clause 15, which modifies the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 in a manner that impacts on the functions that have been devolved to the Welsh Ministers. Those functions concern powers to make regulations in respect of student support, and are exercisable concurrently by the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State in relation to Wales. The modifications only apply in respect of the Secretary of State's functions, and they leave the Welsh Ministers' functions intact. And on that basis, I ask Members to give their consent to the inclusion of clause 15 in the Bill.

I now call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you once again, Llywydd. We have produced two reports covering the three legislative consent memoranda brought forward by the Welsh Government on this Bill. I hope that they have proved helpful to both the Minister as he has continued to navigate inter-governmental negotiations on the Bill, as well as to Members participating in this afternoon's debate.

Our first report, which we laid before the Senedd last November, summarised our consideration of the Welsh Government's original memorandum on the Bill, as well as memorandum No. 2. Now, in that report, we arrived at a number of conclusions that informed the recommendations that we subsequently made to the Minister. To date, we're still awaiting a formal response to that report from the Minister, which is obviously disappointing to the committee and the Senedd. But, the Minister may want, in his remarks, just to put something on record today by way of explanation. He's mentioned that this Bill has been somewhat convoluted, and sometimes he has had to respond in a last-minute fashion to some amendments put forward in Westminster, but it would help.

Now, Members will be aware that memorandum No. 3 was laid on 10 December, just before the Christmas recess. We did, however, manage to report on this further supplementary memorandum by yesterday afternoon. We made just two recommendations in the first report for the Minister to consider. Given the time that has now passed, these recommendations, as we've just heard, have actually been superseded by recent developments in the UK Parliament, as the Bill has been amended during its parliamentary passage. Just in passing, we note that this highlights the understandable complexity of scrutiny generally, but also the additional complexity of scrutiny here in the Senedd of legislation that originates and evolves within the UK Parliament.

Recommendation 1 in our first report asked that the Minister, in advance of the Senedd’s debate on the relevant consent motion, confirm what amendments the Welsh Government would need to see made to clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill in order for it to recommend that the Senedd provides its consent to the Bill. Of course, amendments have now been made to the Bill that have led the Welsh Government to determine that the Senedd's legislative consent is no longer required in respect of those clauses 1 and 4.

Now, whilst we do agree with the Welsh Government's most recent assessment regarding clauses 1 and 4 as amended, can we just suggest that it would have been preferable, in order to assist the Senedd's scrutiny of the legislative consent memoranda, if the Minister had provided further detail at the outset regarding the specific changes that he wished to see made to the Bill, if this were possible at that stage? Now, he may argue that he couldn't foresee it at that time, but it would be helpful to know that.

Recommendation 2 in our first report asked the Minister to confirm why the Senedd's consent should not be sought for new clause 25, which was added to the Bill at the Lords Report Stage. While memorandum No. 3 confirms that the clause was removed from the Bill by the House of Commons, the fact remains that it was a relevant clause for the purpose of our consent procedures when memorandum No. 2 was laid at the end of October last year.

As we have stated as a party on a number of occasions in discussing LCMs, we believe as a matter of principle that it's the Welsh Parliament that should legislate in devolved areas. And at a time when the Westminster Government is showing time and time again its desire and determination to ignore that principle, we are duty bound to ensure Wales and its Government are not pushed to the peripheries in drawing up policy in these areas. We will therefore oppose the motion.

It is crucial, at a time when sectors the length and breadth of Wales—the education sector, particularly—are finding it difficult in terms of capacity to provide services because of challenges and the effects of the pandemic, that we ensure that we do not place any unnecessary burdens on institutions and key organisations in Wales and don't cause any uncertainty or confusion to them either in terms of planning their provision. The education sector is already facing huge challenges, and we shouldn't allow any provisions in the clauses of the Bill to interfere with these organisations that are responding to the skills needs of Wales, be that specifically or in terms of general principle. The dialogue that was required between the Welsh Government and the UK Government has demonstrated the general problems in relations and the attitude that needs to be rejected entirely. The broader point is that the changes and reforms to the clauses noted as being problematic originally are not sufficient to ensure that the basis of our democracy is not undermined in a general sense—technical clause by technical clause, Act by Act.

As the Chair of the constitution committee has set out, we need further details perhaps and further assurances on the possible concerns outlined in the committee's report and the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report also. We need further details on the uncertainties that could arise as a result of these clauses for organisations and in terms of the possible diversion of resources, contrary to Welsh priorities, which could continue to be risks with the Bill as we give our consent to the UK Government to legislate in a policy area that is devolved. And mainly, as a result of the process outlined by the Minister, and which he described an explained to us this afternoon, and this urgency and this confusion that he conveys, the whole process is sure to create confusion for us in terms of the scrutiny process, and that cannot be approved of or allowed.

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Children, Young People and Education Committee, as well as the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee have noted a number of concerns and we've heard them set out this afternoon in terms of delays in laying the LCM and the SLCM, noting the importance of adhering to the timetable set out in the Senedd's Standing Orders. In this regard, it was noted that there wasn't enough time to consider or scrutinise the LCM or the SLCM sufficiently. They don't draw attention in our Chamber as our major debates or the topical questions do, and they're rarely mentioned in headlines, but they are important and, quietly, they are weakening the voice of our democracy.

I call on the Minister for education to reply.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I just respond and thank both contributors to the debate? Just to respond to the point made by Sioned Williams, I agree that it's not desirable that the scrutiny and decision-making processes of this Parliament are reliant on the timetable of the Westminster, Parliament. I have explained how that has caused an element of delay in bringing forward these LCMs, which isn't desirable, and not one of us would want to see that, of course. But, what I would say in the context of this specific memorandum is that now, given that discussions between ourselves and the Westminster Government have borne fruit in the sense that they have responded to our requests as amendments, I'm pleased to be able to say that it's just a very slight issue that now remains on the face of the Bill and which requires the consent of this Senedd.

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies and I take the opportunity once again of thanking his committee, and the children and young persons committee, for their consideration of a number of memoranda that have featured as part of this legislation. In relation to the points that the committee made on clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill, I hope that my letter to the CYPE committee, which was copied to his committee, in late November set out sufficiently fully our view as a Government in relation to those two clauses. We will, I'm afraid, have to differ in relation to the analysis in relation to clause 31. I'm confident that our position as a Government is well founded, but I do respect the fact that he and the committee take a slightly different view in relation to that. But, again, I hope it's not a matter of such significant substance that that causes a practical challenge for him.

Lastly, I should acknowledge and apologise that the formal response to the report has not been received by the committee. I hope my comments today have set out, at least for the record today, our position in relation to that one outstanding point on the substance of the matters that were in that report. From memory, I think many of them will have been dealt with in the third memorandum, but I absolutely acknowledge that hasn't been the subject of a formal response to the committee, which I'll make sure that he does receive. Diolch yn fawr iawn. I therefore ask the Senedd to support the motion and consent to provision being made in this Bill.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and I will therefore defer voting on this item until voting time.

Before we suspend proceedings for voting time, I'd like to call Carolyn Thomas to make a point of clarification for the Record. Carolyn Thomas.

Diolch, Llywydd. I omitted to declare I'm a Flintshire councillor in reference to the draft budget debate, agenda item No. 3. I apologise, and please could I do so retrospectively?

Thank you for that clarification. We will now take a short break to make technical preparations for voting time. So, a short break.

We move now to voting time, and the first vote this afternoon is on item 5, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 22) Regulations 2021. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Item 5. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions and 15 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

We move now to item 6, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 23) Regulations 2021. I call for a vote on the motion under item 6, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, 13 abstentions and 15 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

Our next vote is on item 7, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 25) Regulations 2021. I call for a vote on the motion under item 7, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, 12 abstentions—. I apologise. In favour 29, 12 abstentions and 15 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The final vote is on item 9 on the legislative consent motion on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jeremy Miles. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, no abstentions and 12 against. And therefore, the motion is agreed.

And that brings today's voting to a close. A very good evening to you all.