We will support these regulations here today, because, generally speaking, we agree on the need to introduce, in general terms, the restrictions or the easements proposed in them. But I will make a few points. The first of those is on the scrutiny process and the fact that many weeks have passed here between the introduction of some of these changes—it's up to a month since some of these changes were introduced in the case of the No. 6 regulations. Now, of course, the current circumstances are unprecedented, but not only is the situation we're in in terms of this delay very unusual, it is most unsatisfactory in democratic terms. It creates democratic confusion, but also causes confusion on a practical level. For example, with the No. 6 amendments, it talks about allowing piloting open-air meetings of up to 100 people in sports, and so on; the First Minister has confirmed that that pilot has been judged to be too risky and came to an end 10 days ago, but now we are asked to approve these amendments. So, it causes confusion.

In this pandemic, messaging must be clear. I do think that the Government needs to look, in general terms, at how its messages are conveyed and how those messages are understood. We know from examples of interviews in the media by people in our communities that people are still confused in terms of what they're required to do in terms of their personal behaviour in a number of cases. So, I appeal for clearer messaging, and that, for me, relates to the scrutiny process being closer to the timetable of the regulations themselves. If there's confusion within our national Parliament, then there should be no doubt that there is confusion on the ground too.