Llywydd, to return to the Member's first point, I do hope that he is advising his constituents that it is perfectly possible in Wales today for people who have a compassionate reason for doing so to travel more than a local distance in order to see people who need that visit. It would be a great shame if—[Inaudible.]—about that, because the people in the circumstances that he described ought to be able to act in accordance with that ability to make a compassionate visit where that is necessary. That's available to people in Wales today, as it has been since the changes were made. 

In relation to changes made across our border, I look forward to seeing the evidence on which those changes were made. I spoke yesterday morning to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office, and he promised that the devolved administrations would see all the evidence that the UK Government has used in coming to its conclusions. That evidence had not arrived by the end of yesterday, but we certainly hope to see it today.

In Wales the message remains: stay 2m apart. That is the safe way to behave. The science we have seen is the science from SAGE that says that if you halve the distance, the risk increases somewhere between two and five times greater than if you stay at a 2m distance. That is the science; the Member was interested in the science when it concerned him. That's the science in relation to the 2m rule. If because the transmission of the disease is falling in Wales we are able to make some exceptions in some sectors, provided it is safe to do so, and put mitigating measures in place, then of course we will consider that very carefully.

I know that sectors in England are waiting today to see the guidance as to how they will be able to use the advice that they were given yesterday in a practical way. We, too, will look forward to seeing that. If it is possible, always using public health as our primary test to reduce the 2m rule by exception, then we will see what we are able to do in Wales. But we will do it by looking at the evidence first and making the decision second, not making the decision and then looking for the evidence.