I welcome Rhun ap Iorwerth's broad points about welcoming the direction and the cautious approach taken. I note that his group is going to abstain. On non-essential retail, we had a difficult choice to make, not a straightforward one, on whether we have opening of new areas, and that in itself could be messy and complicated, or whether we reopen those venues that are already open and that would only have been acceptable in the way that we have done it, in making sure there is further support available for those businesses that are yet to be able to open, albeit they can all see the clear telegraphing of 12 April as a date to reopen more fully. And again, that comes back to the point about having a properly phased return and being able to forecast those changes. And the phased return for schools has meant that we have had some room for alternative manoeuvre, but not to the extent that we could open all non-essential retail at the same time, and so a choice has had to be made.

When it comes to your concern about the balance of indoor and outdoor exercise—and I note that you didn't put in an absolute term, saying 'open up lots more indoor exercise'—it comes back to a point that I think you made earlier in your contribution: outdoor activities tend to be less risky, and that's why—as we did last summer and last spring—we're looking to open up outdoor activities typically first when it comes to exercise and potential mixing. That's a safer way to do this. We are looking at indoor exercise and indoor activity opening more gradually, and we of course have got to think about the balance of risk and the available headroom to us in the advice we get from our scientific advisers and the chief medical officer.

We have, though, provided a forecast for the future; we have an indication of six weeks or so of what we think is likely to happen, but we can't guarantee those things will happen. As the Member knows, in your reference to issues on your local patch around Holyhead, it's possible that circumstances may change, it's possible that we may see an unfortunate and more widespread increase in case numbers that may mean that we need to pause. So, as ever, that's why we are generally being driven by data and not dates.

I'll deal with Mark Reckless's point, and I think that when it comes to, 'The data is moving faster than our opening', I think, with respect, that doesn't take account of the clear advice that we've had and that we've published, but also the very public comments from the technical advisory group, from the SAGE committee, and from chief medical officers across the UK. The Chief Medical Officer for England has given some very clear advice about not having too fast a pace in reopening, because that would risk a significant return in coronavirus infections with all the harm caused physically, mentally and, crucially, economically as well. I recognise the Member has a desire to see as much liberalising as quickly as possible; we are simply taking seriously the public health and the scientific advice on how to do that as safely as possible as well as as quickly as possible, and that will remain the position during the lifetime of this Government.

I note that he took umbrage on behalf of Andrew R.T. Davies. I think, with respect, when the leader of the opposition is making the comments that he did and imputing motives to politicians making incredibly difficult choices, I don't think that's something that should be left uncommented on. And I think, with respect, he's taken a much broader point from the very specific issues, where I do think the leader of the opposition should reflect on the position that he's set out in public. These regulations and the measures that I have had to front and introduce—the measures that all Cabinet Members have had to take part in—have not been done by recourse to ego, but by recourse to the reality of our situation, and on a day when we're reflecting on a year of lockdown from the first one and the incredible loss of life we've seen despite those measures, I just think that it's a poor choice of tone as well as the deliberate content of those words yesterday from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to suggest that there other irrelevant and ideological egos, rather than simply keeping the public safe. 

When it comes to being a unionist, I say that I'm a unionist as well. I just don't want to roll back devolution in the way that he does. The powers that the people of Wales have voted for on two occasions mean that this is why we're having these debates, this is why Welsh Ministers are making the range of decisions that we have made. And, with respect, he knows very well that we disagree on this, but I do object to a suggestion that to be a unionist you have to be in favour of rolling back powers and sending them back to Westminster, rather than a proper sharing of responsibility and powers across the United Kingdom that respects the two devolution referenda that we have had. And I did rather think that Mr Reckless liked to respect referenda results, but apparently not in this case. 

When it comes to the phased return for schools, we are respecting the advice from SAGE and our own technical advisory group and the chief medical officer. A phased return for schools—