Thank you, Llywydd. Members will be aware that these two sets of regulations amend the principal regulations on the coronavirus restrictions, and they're made, as has been indicated by the Minister, under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Now, for context, I'd like to briefly outline the purpose of the principal regulations, which came into force on 26 March and were subsequently approved by the Senedd on 29 April.

Those regulations put restrictions on the movement of individuals, setting out circumstances in which they may leave the place where they live, and prevent gatherings of groups of more than two people, except in certain circumstances, and again, as has already been commented on, require the closure of certain businesses and impose requirements on other businesses, as well as duties to close certain public footpaths and land. The No. 2 amending regulations came into force on 25 April, and the No. 3 amending regulations came into force on 11 May.

Our reports on these regulations are provided with the agenda, so they are before Members. There are no technical reporting points that we wish to raise in either case, but I do want to make absolutely clear that we have paid very close attention to these regulations. We do all fully understand the reasoning behind these powers. The Minister himself has explained this reasoning as well, but, nevertheless, it is important to recognise that they are probably the greatest restriction on fundamental liberties and rights that have been put in place across the whole of the UK since the second world war. It is therefore fundamental that the implementation and operation of these extraordinary powers are kept under regular scrutiny by committee and by this Parliament, as we are the custodians of the liberties they restrict, and ensure that they are only in place for as long as public safety requires it and they are a proportionate restriction to the risk.

Now, our human rights obligations are also fundamental, so it is important that these are highlighted, and what I'd like to do is to focus on the human right aspects of the amending regulations, which we highlight in the merits section of our report. So, we noted that the following articles are engaged in relation to the No. 2 regulations: article 8, which is the right to respect for private and family life; article 9, which is with regard to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; article 11, freedom of assembly and association; and article 1 of the first protocol, protection of property. Now, all of these are qualified rights, which, as the Minister has already indicated, can be interfered with provided the interference is justified.

Now, the Welsh Government's explanatory memorandum originally did not identify the specific articles that it considers are engaged in respect of these regulations, so we noted that the Government set out a limited commentary on the justification for interfering with the exercise of human rights as a result of the regulations, mainly to prevent the spreading of infectious diseases and protect public health, and in a manner that is proportionate. However, it should make its justification by reference to the specific articles of the Human Rights Act 1998 that are engaged, and such an approach allows the Welsh Government to explain more clearly the balancing exercise it undertook as it required under human rights law when a private right collides with a public interest. I do not, of course, say that there has been any breach of human rights; I only emphasise that, even in times of emergency, human rights must not be forgotten.

Furthermore, we must at all times resist the temptation to allow the restriction of liberties and rights to become in any way normalised. So, I therefore welcome the Welsh Government's response to our report. It identifies that, in addition to the articles referred to in our report, article 5, that is the right to liberty, and article 14, the prohibition of discrimination, are also engaged. It also provides a more detailed commentary justifying and explaining the interference with the exercise of human rights.

Turning now to the No. 3 regulations, these regulations do a number of important things, again, as the Minister has outlined: permitting libraries, garden centres and plant nurseries to open subject to requirements to take all reasonable measures to ensure a distance of 2m is maintained by persons on the premises and persons waiting to enter the premises; specifying that leaving the place where you live to collect goods ordered from a shop operating on an order-and-collect basis constitutes a reasonable excuse for the purpose of regulation 8(1) of the principal regulations; and removing the limitation on exercising no more than once a day.

Now, as regards human rights, the explanatory memorandum explains that the regulations engage articles 8 and 11 as well as article 1 of the first protocol. Again, some commentary on justification for interference with these rights is provided. Of particular note, the regulations add the proportionality of requirements and restrictions as a consideration when the Welsh Ministers review the principal coronavirus regulations. In our report, we note that proportionality is a fundamental consideration when assessing the justification for interfering with certain individual rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and it goes to the root of the lawfulness of the decision to interfere with those rights. So, as such, we welcome this amendment because it recognises not only the Welsh Ministers' overarching duty of proportionality, as the Minister has confirmed, under the 1984 public health Act, but also their overarching responsibility to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act, which we are satisfied there is. Diolch, Llywydd.