Can I just add my voice to those who've said that of course we understand the gravity of the position in Wales? We speak to our health boards and we read the evidence—when we get to see it. We also understand that decisions to control this virus are not easy to make, but it is our duty to hold Government to account when we think that they've made the wrong call, and that is what we are doing. The First Minister's response to Laura Anne Jones's question yesterday was so off-key that it struck me as a sign of the utter weariness within Welsh Government at the moment, and when people are exhausted, they can make mistakes.

Now, Alun Davies, you would have us believe that the Welsh Conservatives would cast the entire population of Wales into a lime pit for the sake of a headline. I think you need to consider that accusation, because while it's patently untrue, of course, it's a very risky position for a party of Government to take when it's trying to persuade the people of Wales that that Government deserves respect and trust. Any Government party that puts itself out there as being unwilling to accept that their decisions are open to scrutiny is taking that risk.

I recognise the frustration. The Government has tried all manner of ways forward, most of which we have supported, and yet the virus continues to spread. Short of locking us all up until our vaccination appointment comes through, we will not beat it. As we all recognise that we cannot live in that way, we have to live with the virus in a way that balances the risk of infection with our sanity, our livelihoods, the continuing education of our children and the means of creating wealth to keep our public services going. Constituents will accept regulations when they see the connection between action and purpose—keeping everyone safe. There have been decisions that they've accepted ruefully, but in which they believe. But since then we've had the 5 mile rule, the non-essential goods announcement, random closing times, the blanket restrictions when the virus is not behaving uniformly across Wales, and now, of course, the bathos of the ban on alcohol sales, because one glass of cider at lunchtime is apparently potent enough to deprive you of your reason, whereas a glass of lemonade emits some kind of force field that keeps your hands clean and 2m away from your friends. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

Yes, there are people who flout the rules—sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. People are fatigued, as the First Minister has understood whilst he's tried to explain the spread of the disease. But you need to think now about how to tackle two new threats, and those are incredulity and resentment. Now, of course constituents were incredulous about the alcohol ban, not because we're a nation of boozers, but because of the cut-off of the main source of profit to small businesses that have already taken a battering, without scientific justification, whilst presenting another bonanza to the supermarkets. There's been no outbreak of temperance and social distancing as a result—rather a defiant switch to meeting indoors with friends who shouldn't be there, hugger-mugger, and where the sanitiser's going to be the least popular alcohol in the house.

Then there's that resentment. The First Minister was clearly irked yesterday by the word 'punishment', and I'm sure he doesn't intend to punish anyone. Let me make that plain. But there's no real acknowledgement of how constituents feel about what they now see as a disconnect between aim, action and achievement. And not just those who've done their best to stick within the rules, even though it's deprived them of the contact that's meant the most to them, but specifically those COVID-compliant hospitality businesses that others have already mentioned today. I know, Minister, in your response you will refer to the financial support. It is certainly appreciated, but as we've already heard, it's not enough, and it's not what these businesses and their clientele believe works now. They want to be able to employ people and trade safely.

I just want to take one pub in my region, which was bought by its owners with the husband's redundancy money and a mortgage when his pit closed. It's not a big flashy place, but they've spent money on it, and they of course have made it 100 per cent COVID compliant. It's a local that is popular with its older regulars, many of them living on their own. I think Helen Mary Jones mentioned people in a similar position. They've had one grant, for which they were grateful. They've applied for ERF funding and they're still waiting to hear if they're going to get it. They've asked for discretionary funding from the local council, but Bridgend County Borough Council's reputation for dilatoriness and hoop-jumping requirements for this kind of relief is well known locally. They've used their savings, and now they're closed because you won't let them sell their product. They are not confident that they're going to reopen. And this pub is also their home. So, what happens if the bank forecloses? What's going to happen to this couple in their sixties? This is why I think the balance is wrong here, Minister. We don't want people spreading COVID—of course, we don't—but we don't want them made homeless either.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and if you stay on this particular road, then people are just going to stop listening to you, those NHS beds will keep on filling up and, Lynne, public health will not be protected.