Diolch, Llywydd. Can I first of all thank the First Minister for his kind remarks about the spirit of the amendments? There was a tantalising reference there to the one amendment that the Government hasn't been able to accept. I hope it's not the amendment calling for support for the request, the unanimous request, by the four chief constables and the four police and crime commissioners for raising the fines for those that have broken the lockdown rules so that they can do their work of protecting people in our communities. 

Now, the first question, and the most important question of all, I think, in thinking about the next phase, is what we're trying to achieve. We really have a choice here, it seems to me, based on the strategies that other countries have followed—and there's reference in the document published by the Government to learning from other countries. We can adopt a suppression strategy to try and eliminate the disease, which is the approach that New Zealand and others have explicitly adopted, or we can try to flatten the curve, as it's come to be known, once more, with the main focus being trying to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed by a second or third wave. 

Now, we have asked the Government to clarify which of those two strategies it espouses, and it would be good to get clarity on that today, because I think that the language of the recovery and road map documents is a little ambiguous in some senses, because the strong emphasis on test, trace and isolate points in one direction, but in the document, for example, released on 24 April, one of the key metrics that has been set for evaluating relaxation measures is

'evidence that we can cope with the expected increase in healthcare needs for at least 14 days if the infection rate goes above 1 and the virus is spreading widely once again.' 

That sounds more as if it's pointing in the direction of managing the spread of the disease below a critical level, rather than trying to eliminate the disease wherever it re-emerges. 

The New Zealand approach means ending widespread community transmission before relaxing lockdown measures, and it means also, of course, rejecting the herd immunity approach. We had proposed two amendments on both those matters. They haven't been selected, but perhaps the First Minister, in responding, could state what the position of the Government is. 

Moving on to—. As well as ending community transmission first, we believe a second prerequisite for ending substantive lockdown measures is making sure that the contact, trace and isolate system is fully operational and a proven success. We have the pilots, but we need time to evaluate the pilots before confirming that they are working properly. And what would be good to know from the First Minister is: what does success look like? What level of the proportion of contacts do we need to be able to trace in order to control local outbreaks? Is it 50 per cent, is it 80 per cent, or 90? 

The emphasis within the Welsh Government's approach with the traffic lights is sectoral, and the UK Government, on the other hand, has a five alert-level system applied nationally. There is at least some potential for confusion here. One interesting suggestion is that the Joint Biosecurity Centre will produce rate-of-infection assessments at a very local level, and that could be used then to stop new local hotspots by re-imposing lockdown measures at a local level. Indeed, we've heard mayors in England like Andy Burnham calling for a more decentralised approach, which is also supported by the WHO. Does the Welsh Government see some potential in the next phase for that kind of localised approach?

And, finally, it's not just test and trace, of course, it's test, trace and isolate. The current position is that people with symptoms should isolate for seven days. The WHO recommend 14 days for people with symptoms, for quarantine, and that appears to be evidence-based, as viral shedding in some people can last longer than seven days. So, will the Government look at that and adopt it, based on the WHO's advice?

And, finally, could we also consider establishing central isolation quarantine points for people to isolate, for example, repurposed hotels? We know that the virus exploits overcrowded housing. We know that many people have caught it from a family member or housemates. Establishing these kinds of community facilities for quarantine has been key to eliminating the virus in Wuhan and parts of Italy, and many people would also feel reassured they were not putting family members at risk. So, could the Government, as we enter this new phase with test, trace and isolate, look at strengthening the 'isolate' element within the measures?