The third area of these where there's—I hesitate to say significant, but it does extend them, is the 2m requirement for social distancing put into legislation, which I find absolutely extraordinary. What is the scientific evidence of Welsh Government that they have, that apparently others don't, that 2m is the key determinant? Why do they think that key determinant would be the same inside as it is outside? Why do they think the countries in Europe such as Germany, which has 1.5m, or France and Italy, which I believe have 1m—? Even the World Health Organization, which I certainly don't accept as gospel, says 1m. Why do we in Wales know better?

Has this 2m actually just been carried over from an English template used by UK Government? But of course they haven't put that in law. They're working sensibly with businesses, industries and sectors to think how best to get them back to work in a way that minimises spread of risk in a sensible way while getting the economy going. It's much harder to do that in Wales, because legislation specifies that 2m and it refers to 'persons responsible for businesses'. That requires a business to determine who in that business is legally responsible. And it may be that the person who is responsible and usually does things doesn't want to be named as the person who is responsible and maybe guilty of this offence set up by Welsh Government, and therefore that business may not reopen when it otherwise could.

Many, many large businesses operating across the UK, in many cases beyond, reopening many of their places of business in England, will look at this and think, 'Well, actually, there's going to be an offence if we do it in Wales, and we have to be certain we're not committing that offence, and actually, to date, we haven't got any Wales law specialists on our staff, and it's difficult to go out and get external advice, and we don't want the risk of potentially falling foul of that regulatory requirement', so they don't reopen. I just do not think this is a sensible approach. 

The amendment 3 regulations: I thought actually much of what Angela said about that. I think she spoke very well, and many of the points about the exercise regime I won't make as she's already made them. I welcome that the Conservatives will actually be abstaining on these amendment 3 regulations. It's about time we saw at least a degree of opposition from them to what Welsh Government is doing and their determination to have difference for difference's sake from what is going on in England. 

For the first time, we actually see in law that requirement in terms of local for exercise. Of course, the First Minister says things that are very different. He keeps on going on about exercise having to start and finish at home, but that isn't in law and, at least when I last checked, I couldn't find it in the Welsh Government guidance anyhow. It did however say that local, if you lived in Cardiff, wouldn't be as far as Porthcawl, so I hope some people find that helpful, that if they do drive to exercise but they don't drive that far at least they're being consistent with that element of the guidance. I think it's very difficult to judge what people can do. We've heard, I think, Dai Lloyd say you couldn't drive, but I've heard some other people say you can in some circumstances. And the legislative requirement that we—or, at least, I fear others—are going to agree to is that it should be local, which is undefined.

But our strongest reason for voting against these regulations is that they remove the requirement for Welsh Ministers to get rid of restrictions if they're unnecessary. I find it absolutely extraordinary that you can have these restrictions on people's lives, as extreme as they are, consider that they're no longer necessary, but change the law so you can keep them anyhow for up to six months. And the health Minister has the cheek to tell us that that's increasing democratic oversight. What it's doing is it's giving it a ratchet. It is entrenching these restrictions. Ministers can willy-nilly bring them in when they like, claim they're urgent and make them law, without the Assembly having agreed them—as, belatedly, we have the opportunity to do here—but when they become unnecessary they can keep them. I think that is wrong. 'Reasonable', 'proportionate', those are all in the UK law. It is outrageous that Welsh Government is changing the law so it can keep restrictions when they are unnecessary. So, instead, they can put them through their continuity-Corbyn equality tests and sieve them on that basis. It's not a proper basis for retaining these types of restrictions, and we'll be voting against both sets of regulations.