I begin my contribution to this debate by acknowledging the personal courage of the First Minister over the last six months in bringing the legislation, which he knew would be, in the most, very unpopular with the Welsh public. Where I seek to differ from the First Minister's approach is in the science, or so-called science, which he has acted upon. [Interruption.] But let me make this clear: I do not base my opposition on my own personal ability to interpret the effect of the COVID-19 virus, but on the views and opinions of a very large cohort of scientists who are every bit as competent as those whose advice he follows, and it is true to say that their views are at complete odds with those of the First Minister's advisers. [Interruption.] I will say this: it appears that many of the First Minister's advisers were amongst those who expressed opinions on the dire consequences of other pandemics, such as bird flu, swine fever and SARS, where it was said that each had a propensity to tear through the population like some medieval plague. Those same scientists even today cannot explain why, without the dire interventions we've experienced for COVID-19, they each died out with none of the dire consequences envisaged. Coronavirus is life threatening for a tiny proportion of the population. Almost everyone who has succumbed to this illness is over 80 years of age, and most with longstanding, morbid illnesses. [Interruption.] The Minister says that there are 400 in our hospitals with COVID; there are thousands more in our hospitals with serious flu symptoms. Flu is just as deadly to those who are old and infirm as COVID.

[Interruption.] If we can now turn to the latest regulations and restrictions that target, primarily, the hospitality sector.