Minister, thank you for your opening remarks. I appreciate there's been a Government reshuffle, but it does look as if you're requiring more help to keep to your timings on these statements. It was deeply unfortunate, to say the least, the start of these very important regulations being debated and discussed this afternoon.

As Welsh Conservatives, we will be voting against the amendment regulations No. 16, which refer to Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham, but we will be supporting the regulations No. 2, which is agenda item number 8, which refer to extended households, which we think is an important addition to, obviously, assisting people who live on they own.

If I could just touch on a few reasons for our objections, which basically mirror the same objections we put forward last week, in voting against the restrictions that were tabled last week: we do not believe that the county-wide restrictions that the Government have put in place are ultimately necessary in all the areas that are identified by these regulations and a far more targeted approach would have been far more suitable in this instance. The Government proved that they can do this twice now—once in Llanelli and, obviously, once in Bangor. Many people in north Wales who are suffering under a county-wide restrictive practice will be thinking, 'Well, why at Bangor with an infection rate of 400 per 100,000, while there a far lower infection rates in other parts of north Wales?' There could have been a far more targeted approach delivered with better outcomes, I would suggest, and so I'd be grateful if the Minister could highlight why the other four counties were identified as needing county-wide lockdowns when Gwynedd only had a town/city-wide lockdown in Bangor, with a far higher infection rate.

I'd also like to understand when the two-weekly review of the effectiveness of previous regulations that we've seen for the Vale, Cardiff, Torfaen, Neath Port Talbot will be made available, because, again, to keep public confidence, it is really important that the public at large understand the effectiveness of these measures and, actually, whether they are having an effect in suppressing the virus.

The Minister, in his opening remarks, did touch on the letter that the First Minister has sent today to the Prime Minister asking for more travel restrictions, and I did ask the First Minister, but I didn't get an answer from him, about the SAGE advice that was given in September about the effectiveness of travel restrictions, and they said—this is the SAGE document I'm reading from—they would have a low impact and they had moderate confidence in the outcomes. They also said exemptions and enforcement are likely to be very complicated to be delivered. I'd be grateful if the Minister could identify whether he is actually working from this advice that SAGE have provided to the Government when he does talk about travel exemptions, especially when they talk about low impact and only moderate confidence. It does seem there's a lot of headline chasing rather than following the science with some of the regulations that are coming forward from the Government at the moment. In particular, when it comes to the letter that has been sent by the First Minister today and the talk about the briefing document that's gone with it—and that briefing document has not been peer reviewed—it does not constitute definitive proof. These are the words that have been leaked to the press today, because the press have seen this document but we as Assembly Members haven't seen this document. So, again, from these benches, we will be very sceptical of the way the Government is proposing (a) a circuit breaker and (b) further travel restrictions, because from what we're seeing in the evidence that's been presented, the evidence doesn't stack up for that road. I'd also point out that the World Health Organization's European representative today is on record as saying that a circuit-breaker lockdown would not be effective and have far higher detrimental impacts on mental health and physical health and well-being, and I think that's something the Government need to reflect on, rather than following Keir Starmer's request at 5 o'clock today for a lockdown.