Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We're in a slightly odd position here today. We're debating a petition, as we've just been told, that arose primarily on one weekend on a small but very controversial aspect of a 17-day firebreak that was designed to protect our NHS and to save lives, and which the early indications suggest has indeed had a dampening effect on the spiralling increases in the rise of coronavirus. We're debating a petition that covered a 17-day period, a 17-day period that is now over and that was pretty definitely and obviously going to be over by the time it would be debated. But here we are. So, let's debate it, as it does raise some very important issues, and let's look at this in context.

In my area, covered by the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, I know, as does my colleague the Conservative shadow health spokesman, who has railed against the firebreak measures in their entirety in true Trumpian style, and he has sat in on the same Cwm Taf briefings and listened and heard, though never challenged what he heard from those on the front line of our health service, that in the final week of the firebreak, out of six available intensive care COVID beds in the Royal Glamorgan, six were occupied, out of 10 intensive COVID beds in Prince Charles, nine were occupied, and of four at Princess of Wales, two were occupied, or that 69 of the 84 non-intensive COVID beds in the Royal Glam were taken, 97 of the 120 in Prince Charles, 110 of the 115 in the Princess of Wales. And this is the context in which the attacks on the firebreak were being mounted by the Conservative Party and by the Brexit Party, UKIP and assorted others, as well as massive interventions online from outside of the borders of Wales—let alone the people who signed the petition, those attacks from outside. It is curious how much of this was excited and whipped up by London-centric anti-Labour media. I don't complain about that, I just note it as a fact. People complaining about this policy from outside Wales, mocking Wales, indeed, whilst Boris Johnson's Government dithered and delayed until finally compelled by unarguable science to enter a much delayed four-week lockdown that, because of the delay and the result of increasing COVID there, may well have unnecessarily cost lives in England.

At one point, the Conservative health spokesman in Wales, the former leader of the Welsh Conservatives, in the midst of a stream of diatribes against the firebreak supported by the Welsh Conservatives' social media account, actually described the measures as a 'socialist's wet dream'. Now, I assume these splenetic utterances are sanctioned by the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, Paul Davies. I politely ask Andrew R.T. Davies and Paul Davies to reflect on their approach to this and to their constructive opposition generally in times of a national public health crisis. Is this sort of language and approach from frontbench spokespersons unbecoming and undignified? Do you know, I really don't care? It's up to the individual Members. Is it wise? Not if it undermines public confidence in science-based measures to tackle coronavirus, which it definitely does. Is it hypocritical? Well, only if it is in direct contravention of the very policy supported by the Conservatives as part of a UK-wide set of measures to save lives. So, as Boris Johnson belatedly imposed the four-week lockdown in England, including a ban on the sale of non-essential goods from shops that are allowed to stay open, I ask the Conservative frontbench whether their UK leader and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can now be described as in any way being in the midst of a 'socialist's wet dream', in the words of the former Conservative leader in Wales.

But let me be clear, as a backbench Member of this Senedd, I know that lessons will be learnt about the clarity of communication and the implementation of the detail of the firebreak by Welsh Government. Children's clothes, by the way, could be sold, urgent items could be accessed. And I look forward, by the way, to future meetings with the Wales Retail Consortium to explore their approach to this and how they and their members might work more effectively with the medical and scientific advice during a public health emergency, with guidance and legislation aimed to protect lives and control the spread of the disease.

But let me close, Deputy Presiding Officer, by reflecting on an interesting remembrance event I attended this morning. The vicar who led the service noted that whilst our soldiers in the first world war faced sniper bullets and mortar bombs whilst huddling in shell holes, we faced 17 days without shopping for non-essential consumer goods when there was a public health emergency raging. I ask Members to consider that. Thank you.