But things aren't quite as straightforward with the second set, which are the No. 23 regulations. The central aim here—we're very happy with it—is the regulations on working from home. That made sense and it followed clear advice from scientific and technical advisers to the Government. But there are elements of these regulations that we're uncomfortable with, namely the element of the threat of fines for individual workers if they don't work from home where that is possible. For us, for the TUC—and I'm grateful for the work that the TUC has done on this—and for many people who have raised concerns about this, this is not acceptable. The First Minister explained that this provides safeguards to workers in some way, and I don't accept that viewpoint. He said that this reflects rules that were in force earlier in the pandemic. The Minister reiterated that today and we've heard that nobody has been penalised. Well, that doesn't justify what is unfair and unjust here in principle, I don't think. It's a matter of providing safety in the workplace. This is what we're talking about, and for us it's not acceptable to place the onus on individual employees to ensure their own safety in the workplace; it's the employer that should carry that responsibility. That's the reasonable basis for individuals relating to workplace safety. And whilst I don't want fines to be given to employers either—I want people to adhere to the regulations—it's right that the employer should face that threat of sanction if the regulations are not adhered to.

The Government has changed some of the guidance around these regulations, but the fundamental regulations remain as they were. So, as things stand, we will be voting against these regulations. However, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say. If we can be given clearer assurances that workers will not be penalised, that that threat will cease to exist and, more importantly, that new regulations will be drawn up as a matter of urgency that will place the onus on the employer rather than the employee—making that clear—then we would be willing to abstain in order to retain that centrally important element in terms of homeworking, although, of course, I do hope that we are approaching the lifting of that restriction too. But as I say, I will listen very carefully to the Minister's response.

Finally, I turn to the No. 25 regulations. These aren't simple either. We strongly support the core principle that raising the alert level was a sensible step to take in light of the evidence that we had at that time prior to Christmas in terms of the threat that we were facing, but there is an element of these regulations that we don't agree with—we raised that before they were introduced; it is something that I and others have raised a number of times today and it's been done across the political spectrum—and that's the number of people who can gather outdoors, including for sporting events. We don't believe that a maximum of 50 was proportionate, and being proportionate and appearing to be fair has to be an essential part of regulation. In responding to demands to scrap those requirements on allowing crowds in sports events, the Government said that the biggest factor, perhaps, with these events is not watching the match itself, but the things related to that—the numbers travelling on public transport or the numbers gathering in pubs before and after a game. Well, perhaps that is true with the major events—even with those, I would want to see the Government lifting restrictions as soon as possible so that we can continue with six nations matches, for example—but if we look at the lower levels in terms of sport—football matches, rugby matches at a local level or a national level that attract hundreds rather than tens of thousands of people—well, sorry, but the arguments regarding large-scale infections on public transport and in pubs clearly don't hold water in the same way.

Now, because we are agreed with the core principle of raising the alert level, we won't oppose these regulations, but our decision to abstain on this today does reflect the feeling that we could have refined things around sporting events particularly, and sends a message once again that we, once again, ask the Minister to look at that issue, be it sports events, sports games or parkruns and so on and so forth. Thank you.