I agree with what's been said about increasingly ridiculous debating things over a month after they've happened, while in the real world, new stuff is going through, often going in a different direction, at the same time we're talking about the old stuff.

I'm grateful, though, for the health Minister including in his contribution what I thought were some references to the local council-based lockdowns that we've recently had coming in. Can I clarify whether those remarks were just to be helpful and talk about something that was current, or whether particular things he was saying about that are relevant to the particular amendments we're voting on today?

Overall, our approach has been to vote against all legislative coronavirus restrictions. We consider that they are disproportionate and counterproductive, and we'd much prefer the type of approach that Sweden has exemplified successfully. We have some liberalising regulations here, but we have, and I don't know if this is the health Minister's area—. We've seen operations decline, you state, by 62 per cent in the Welsh NHS; we've seen 16,000 fewer cancer referrals. I think, on an England and Wales basis last week, we saw 70 deaths from COVID but 125 from suicide. You know, are these proportionate?

The regulations No. 6—we go from two to four extended households, which is liberalising, and also allowing life-event celebrations, which I assume are celebrations with reference to weddings; they also apply to funerals, so we support that limited liberalisation. On the No. 7 regulations, again, we support reopening casinos, as far as it goes, and also the liberalisation of visiting to care homes. There are restrictions on certain unlicensed music events, which I assume he means mass outdoor raves, given these are in a composite set of restrictions, and I think, even in Sweden, there are limits on those types of events. We will support the No. 7 regulations.

The No. 9 regulations we do not support. You have this regime of extended households—they're meeting in any event, so, as households, presumably, therefore potentially with virus transmission, if that is present—why then restrict to six in groups of households otherwise allowed to meet in differing groups of six? There's the fiddly difference, compared to England, of the arrangements for children. And also, there's the extension of compulsory face coverings, for which the Welsh Government has previously said the evidence is weak. You say you're doing research into people taking them on and off going in and out of restaurants—whether that could that be counterproductive—yet you've applied it compulsorily for shops on the basis of, at best, a very weak evidence base. So, we will support regulations 6 and 7 but vote against the No. 9. Thank you.