Alun, I've just got to say, until those last few sentences, I was with you all the way, because one of the points I think that is worth making in this debate—and it has been made already; the word 'draconian' has been used more than once—is we're not like Spain; we haven't got these draconian powers sitting on our statute books, however well considered they may be. And actually, I wouldn't support that. However clunky and dissatisfying the current process has been, for us to have these sort of Franco-esque powers sitting on our statute books ad infinitum is not something I think I could support, even though I understand the argument that Alun Davies was making. Everything else he said I do agree with, which is slightly unusual, but we may as well accept that.

But I wonder—I mean, I agree with the point that Dawn was making; if we're going to have Governments having the power to stop me seeing my father or my sons, you've got to really prove that you need those powers—the very point that Alun Davies was making as well. So, perhaps I could just take you through some of the specifics, harking back to some of what Helen Mary said, actually, about this balance between our human rights and the necessity for these powers. In particular, I think we've got clause 9 and clause 14 that are of specific interest to me. Clause 9 is the reduction of the number of doctors needed to sign off somebody with mental health problems from being sectioned. Personally, I don't see why you can't find two doctors in those extreme situations, there aren't going to be that many of them. But if we are in that position, perhaps we could be reviewing the decision more frequently than the legislation allows. There's nothing preventing you from doing that and making the very statements that Alun Davies was talking about if they're needed.

Clause 14: assessing the needs of not just people with disabilities, but carers and paid carers in particular. We have a situation now with the legislation where you may be entitled to an assessment, but there's no obligation to meet the needs that are assessed. But in the circumstances that Helen Mary described of 'things will be okay for now, but we might reach a peak where there just aren't enough staff to do assessments', what is your view of just presuming that the arguments put forward by either a carer or somebody cared for that what they're saying is correct? Giving them what they need if it's possible to do that and then reviewing their assertions later on in the process when we have a workforce back to normal. I wouldn't normally support believing people without the due process of assessment, but I think in these circumstances, I don't think people are going to be taking the mickey; they're going to be asking when they're desperate.

Clauses 35 and 36: I just wanted to ask, because there are powers here to suspend the DBS checks, which I completely understand. There are still former teachers in our population who were struck off the register for good reason and I'm hoping that whatever relaxation is taken into account here, that those individuals won't be allowed back into the workforce.

Again, Helen Mary's point on 'essential': what does essential work mean? What does that mean? There are opportunities within individual companies or small businesses for it to mean 'some of your staff is needed and some of your staff is not'. So, the example I was given this morning: 'I work for a small gas firm. If somebody says they've got a gas leak, am I allowed to go out and fix that for them anymore?' Going back to the construction point, I've had a gardening firm get in touch, saying, 'Well, we can work at distance. I understand flower beds not being particularly important, but if somebody rings me up and says a tree is about to land on them, am I allowed to go out and do some tree surgery on it?' That kind of guidance would be necessary.

Because I wasn't able to ask in a question about renting before, can you just confirm for me that the position in England and in Wales about the lengthening of the notice required for possession proceedings is framed in that way for England and Wales, so that we don't have evictions? I appreciate that the principle is accepted by everybody, but it's just to clarify that England and Wales are exactly the same. If they're not, that's fine, but an explanation would be quite useful.

And then, I think, finally from me was a question on—. Yes, Hefin David raised the question of MOTs earlier on. Now at the moment, he's not here, but garages can stay open to do MOTs. As the workforce was generally becomes smaller, because of people either self-isolating or becoming ill, sadly, do you anticipate—and I appreciate that this is a UK question, really, but you will be asked this in COBRA meetings—that we will ever be in a position where legal requirements are likely to be further suspended, as with DBS checks, simply because we don't have enough people to enforce them and in those circumstances, what will we be asking people who would normally be subject to those legal requirements to do? Thank you ever so much.