The Member will know that I've argued in this place throughout the last period that Government needs to demonstrate the evidence for its proposals, and it must do that on all occasions. I argued a month ago, and I'll argue today, that I believe this proposal is proportionate, both to the evidence available and to the nature of the threat that we face, which it is trying to overcome. And therefore it is a proportionate use of the responsibilities of Government and supportable by Members, I would argue, on all sides of the Chamber. 

And this brings us back to the fundamentals, because the debate we're having here is about personal liberty as opposed to the rights of government. And, in quoting John Stuart Mill a month ago, I tried to argue very clearly that government can impose these restrictions only where government can demonstrate that they are doing so to prevent harm to others. Government has done that, and I believe it is incumbent on all of us to recognise that. [Interruption.] I will give way in a moment, but I just wish to make my case here. Because liberty for some, unless it is liberty for all, is not liberty for anyone. Liberty is something that either exists equitably, equally, to everyone in society, or it doesn't exist in that society. Your freedom to watch the rugby on Saturday, my freedom to watch the rugby on Saturday shouldn't be any different to anybody else's freedom to do so as well. And it's by creating the sense of safety and creating the sense of purpose and protection for people that means that everyone can enjoy the game that we did on Saturday. And it's that social solidarity that perhaps the Conservatives find difficulty in understanding. I'll give way.