Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Obviously, things have moved on since this debate was tabled, but I think the original motion and the amendments are pointing now to something quite interesting as we look forward. I think it was yesterday that Mark Reckless mentioned COVID fatigue, and I think that does raise a couple of questions about how we proceed from here, and the first one from me is: do people find it easier to stick to rules when they're asked to do something rather than not to do something? And then, the second question for me is: do they experience more buy-in to a national message than to a local one? For me, these are questions of agency: how can I make a meaningful contribution to making all this better? And responsibility: why should I bother following these rules?

So, on the first of those questions, of doing something rather than not doing something, I think Paul Davies has explained this pretty well. We know that face coverings aren't force fields, but they are a visible statement of intent to the world around you. 'I'm wearing this thing, in my own way, to try not to infect you with a disease that I might not know that I have.' I did a quick experiment on this in Mumbles, in my region, just before summer recess, where shopkeepers weren't particularly keen on seeing people with masks, but when I explained that they were less about self-protection but more about protecting others nearby, they were more than happy to think twice about their original position. And I think in wearing a mask, if I were wearing one, it might make you think twice about standing too close to me, or too close to the person in the queue in front of you who's not wearing a mask. And I suppose while that might make some people a bit judgmental, I think this is why I just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment behind Plaid's amendment 5. I just wish they'd been a bit more specific on where masks should be mandatory, because I'm not big on subjecting our school leaders to lots of formal regulation, but I am quite keen to avoid them being left open to complaints or even legal action about discrimination in any made-in-school policies on face coverings. As I said yesterday, sometimes you do need the force of law behind you to avoid it being invoked against you.

And although, more generally, and except for those who would need to be exempt, I think maybe there's something for being a little bit judgy—those mass demonstrations, the disregard of simple social distancing requirements in supermarkets, those big boozathons we've seen down in the Bay, the house parties. I mean, just on social media yesterday, I saw, and I'm quoting, 'I'm the only one in this carriage wearing a face mask and there's a group of young adults in the seat next to me, all bunched up, looking at each other's phones.'

So, my second question on that—I think it may well be easier to understand the national message, even a national law than a local one, but it's much easier to ignore it when there's no sense of public disapprobation for breach. It's less forgivable, I think, to break rules that obviously affect those around you when your personal behaviour has more traceable impact. A national message also ceases to have effect when its consequences are so utterly disproportionate as to kill credibility. The five-mile rule was a classic case of misdirection of both epidemiological and behavioural science. The number of contacts, not the number of miles, is what matters. And I think I might be entitled to be just a bit judgy on this, where the Government has been willing to shilly-shally on masks and willing to refuse to test asymptomatic staff in hospitals and care homes, let alone more widely, when university labs in Wales were offering to help, but was willing to effectively imprison people like my father for almost four months, regardless of the prevalence of COVID where he or his loved ones lived, and he was someone living well with dementia. He now needs the supervision of a care home because being unable to see his family for so long cut those last few strings tying him to his own identity and sense of place in the world. When I voted for the Coronavirus Act, I told you, health Minister, that you'd better have a very good reason to stop me seeing my elderly father, and a national approach meant that you didn't. And that's why any future management has to be localised, as both we and Plaid seem to suggest here. A holistic framework for next steps must have this at its heart, together with a better understanding of what makes people follow rules and what we now know about unintended consequences.

And just finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, on Cardiff Airport testing, the website doesn't even mention basic temperature testing, and I can tell you it's in place, with no invasion of privacy, at Manchester and Catania airports. The press had money on Cardiff probably leading the way on testing just a few weeks ago, but it just looks like it's turned out to be another case of 'catch up, Cymru', I'm afraid. Diolch.