On Rhun ap Iorwerth's point about the data underpinning the action that we took, in particular in relation to Cardiff, Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Torfaen and the Vale of Glamorgan, we had data at that point in time and a very clear case made to us by each local authority and by each relevant health board that, in those areas, they were confident that, because of the data they saw on the rising number of cases and the community intelligence they had from TTP, they were going to be in a position where they were going to go above the formal data point for intervention. And the point was put in this way: there were sparks that they could all see and they wanted to be able to act before there was a real forest fire. And so, that was the analogy that was put to us in very clear terms by public health teams as well as by each of those leaders and chief executives.

More than that, though, at that point in time, we had more of a challenge with lighthouse lab data. So, we knew that the figures we were seeing were a little in—well, they even further lagged the data that we'd normally have. And actually, we went through this on more than one occasion with those local authorities and we could see that, with the data building up and the positivity rate that we had, actually, we were definitely going to get to a point where we would breach the 50 marker. And there's then the point about why would we wait if we had that level of confidence and a very clearly united view from our public health teams, our national public health agency and the local authority leadership involved as well, including—and I think this is important—the professional officer leadership, not just the elected member leadership.

And in the figures published today, Cardiff has a rate of 107.9 per 100,000; Swansea 111.7; Neath Port Talbot 81.6; Torfaen 54.3; and the Vale of Glamorgan 43.4. The Vale has seen a decline and that's good news. We want to see that decline further and then we could potentially be in a position to lift those restrictions, but that had gone above 50 after we had taken these measures. I think it does show that if the Senedd doesn't pass these regulations today, we would then be releasing restrictions in areas where we know that there is high prevalence already, and I think that would be a mistake. We all have a shared responsibility—us in the legislature and members of the public too and those who are members of the Government—but I think the case is made by the subsequent move. And the same applies for north Wales as well. We're not debating the north Wales regulations today, of course, but in all those north Wales authorities that we put into local restrictions, all of them are well beyond the 50 marker, and I think it was the right thing to do to act when we did.

On the process, we've already described it previously; we also have the chief medical officer and the technical advisory cell co-chairs taking part. And we have that advice from each of the incident management teams that draw together local partners. We also have the relevant police force for the area as well.

On travel restrictions, the First Minister has already set out the position we're in today. We want to see the formal response to the letter, but we are prepared to act to use the powers that we do have in terms of public health protection. The measures on travel restrictions are both to contain the virus in an area of higher prevalence and also to protect lower prevalence areas. Now, we're not interested in saying that this is about England or the English; it's actually about any area where there's a high-prevalence issue, and that's what we're looking to address and to deal with. I think it would actually be in all of our interests to have a more common approach to doing that right across the UK. The Scottish Government take a broadly similar approach and I think it would be helpful to have that joint approach, but if we can't persuade the Government for England to act in the same way, then we'll use our powers, but we'll act on our responsibilities to do so under public health legislation.

Huw Irranca-Davies asked about the travel industry and we have a very clear view that we are deeply disappointed in the way that some parts of the travel industry have behaved. These are legal restrictions on what people can do, and if people go on holiday from one of these restricted areas and fly out of Cardiff Airport, Birmingham, Bristol or any other, then they'll be breaking the law, and that is not a position that travel companies should put people in—to choose between losing a substantial amount of money or to break the law and take the risk. I also think it's not good for the travel industry themselves. If someone were to leave a high-incidence area in Wales to go on a flight and potentially to be the cause of a spreading event on that plane or in a resort, I do not think that the travel industry would be having a good day in explaining why it had acted in such a way where it effectively encouraged people to break the law.

I'll deal now with the more assertive points of people who are disagreeing and not in favour of the regulations. On north Wales, we'll debate those regulations next week, but as I say, all four of the north Wales authorities in areas of additional restrictions are well beyond 50. Gwynedd is in a different position to some of those authorities, because the Gwynedd rate has risen, but we are confident from the additional data we have from test, trace and protect that it is associated with a rise in a specific group of student halls of residence. Now, the numbers of cases are relatively modest, actually, in the overall picture, but in a county like Gwynedd, with the population it has, it does send the rate well beyond 70 on today's figures. But it's because we're confident about where the spread is—that it hasn't gone into community transmission within Bangor—that we don't need to take these broader measures. So, we do set a high bar on whether we should intervene in people's liberties. That's the approach we've taken. It helps to inform the approach that we've taken in Llanelli, where there's broad support for it. So, if the data allows us to take that approach, we will do, and it is a regular consideration for the measures that we put in place.

On the opportunities for a real-time debate, well, there's a choice for the legislature here. These are made under procedures that are in place; they're procedures that are open, providing for made-affirmative legislation, but the legislature must agree them for them to remain in force. And, of course, within the UK Parliament, they don't have the same procedure; there's more scrutiny here than across the border, and I think that is a good thing. It's a choice for the legislature in running its business whether it wants to have the committee report as part of its consideration, because if they chose not to do so, then we could, of course, be debating these regulations at an earlier point in time. We're very open to enabling Members to exercise your function as legislators, at the earliest opportunity, to scrutinise what's being done.

On the 10 o'clock curfew, again, it's a similar curfew to the one that's been introduced in England. We have a bit more latitude for, if you like, the 'finishing up your drink' time, and part of the rationale for that is that there's an issue about consistency in the message. When England indicated they were going to go for a 10 o'clock approach, we had to choose whether we stuck with an 11 o'clock approach or not; we chose not to. It aids the consistency of the message and aids compliance. There is an issue and we're genuinely concerned about whether we're displacing activity or not. That helps to underpin the rationale for keeping licensed premises open, actually, for some of the time. But every single public health team has indicated to us, with the restrictions, that they think there's a secondary spread within licensed premises and there needs to be a formal restriction on the amount of time that people can be in licensed premises for. Because alcohol releases inhibitions, and we've seen particular challenges about people in terms of spreading events drinking long into the evening and potentially not being able to remember all of their contacts as well. So, it's underpinned by local intelligence and it's underpinned by an approach across the United Kingdom. And, actually, it comes from measures taken by the Conservative-led UK Government in having the 10 o'clock measure in place first.

I am disappointed that Conservative Members are going to vote against the restrictions in place for Cardiff, Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Torfaen and the Vale of Glamorgan. I think that is a very serious step to take when everyone can see today that the figures are so high in those areas that they do present a risk to citizens in those local authority areas and citizens in other parts of the country. I'd ask again the Conservative Members to reconsider the approach they take, because all of us have a responsibility, including as legislators. I don't shy away from people asking difficult questions, but I do ask people to exercise their responsibilities, because each of us has one in helping to keep the country safe from this highly infectious and highly harmful virus. I do not want to return to this place and have to read out the increasing death figures that we all recall from April and May. I'd ask people to consider again and I ask Members of the Senedd to support the regulations before us today.