The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations were amended to restrict gatherings to six people or less as a response to rising infections. The rules are meant to be clear and enforceable, with penalties for those who break them.

Asked the Minister about future regulations being debated in Parliament before implementation and whether there is evidence of current measures reducing virus cases.

Inquired about the rationale for including children under the rule of six, seeking clarity on why younger children are exempt from mask-wearing requirements.

Asked if police have powers to enter private dwellings to enforce social gathering restrictions.

Raises concerns about how the rule of six was introduced, highlighting the lack of time for proper parliamentary debate and confusion over enforcement. Criticises inconsistencies with other nations' regulations and questions why children are included in the rule of six while they're excluded elsewhere. Calls for clearer messaging on what the public needs to do and evidence behind decisions. Requests more data on effectiveness and asks for a clarification on why it's a rule of six rather than seven or five.

The regulations are complex, inconsistent with other government policies and advice, and lack a solid justification. They apply equally to indoor and outdoor settings despite the lower risk of transmission outdoors. The minister responsible for these regulations lacks clarity on enforcement details, which raises concerns about the fairness and necessity of such measures.

Questions the scientific basis of the rule of six and its impact on larger families. Requests clarification on police powers of entry during enforcement. Asks for a numerical point of reference for revising restrictions, which should be known to both the public and the House.

Critiques the rule of six and household mingling bans as unprecedented intrusions into personal liberty with significant economic consequences. Questions the efficacy of these measures given the fluctuating rates of positive testing in regions under greater restrictions for longer periods. Requests specific criteria for lifting such restrictive policies.

I emphasise the importance of evidence-based policy making and protecting children's wellbeing. The rule of six lacks clear scientific justification, especially concerning children under 12 who are rarely sent home from school due to coronavirus transmission. This rule discriminates against larger families and impacts mental health by limiting social interaction among children. I argue for a more nuanced approach that allows flexibility in meeting guidelines without compromising public safety.

I am concerned about the lack of evidence supporting the rule of six and its inconsistency compared to measures in Scotland and Wales. The current rules are overly complex and not simple as claimed by the Government, impacting liberty and public health negatively. I fear this policy may undermine compliance with other necessary regulations due to a loss of trust from the public.

Expresses deep concern about the rule of six due to lack of extensive evidence, highlights mental health concerns among younger people, questions inconsistencies in rules such as wedding limits vs. non-league football match attendance, emphasises economic hardship for industries and stresses need for credible, coherent, consistent rules that people can afford to obey.

Intervenes to discuss the First Minister of Wales's call on the Prime Minister to restrict travel from restricted areas in England into Wales, mentions a four-nations approach where decisions can be learned from across nations but faces blockages with the current UK Government setup.

Thanked the Minister and officials for their work, acknowledging the complexity of regulations. Noted that while the Government's measures are understandable due to the nature of the disease, there is concern over the high costs of such measures. Highlighted anecdotes about families unable to meet fully under new rules and a case where a spouse wanted to take her husband out of care for a visit. Suggested there is a gap between people’s intentions to comply and actual compliance. Questioned whether the benefits of lockdown outweigh the costs, referencing a report that showed the cost of the first lockdown was greater than the disease cost in quality-adjusted life years. Called on Ministers to publish robust data about balance of costs and benefits. Emphasised the importance of listening to GPs who have concerns over non-COVID harms. Raised concern about what happens if a vaccine does not come or does not achieve desired outcomes, suggesting the need for a Plan B which includes the Great Barrington declaration.

Agreed with Steven Baker's point that there are other health issues and effects of draconian rules. Suggested the Government should be publishing broader figures on mental health, cancer treatments, and other deaths not attributed to COVID-19.

Mr. Harper expressed appreciation for the firm time limit set by Mr Deputy Speaker and raised concerns about two sets of regulations not being debated: Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 and self-isolation regulations. He highlighted the importance of debating these on the Floor of the House due to their impact nationwide. Concerned about police enforcement powers in the self-isolation regulations, he stated that if they are not amended, he would vote against them. Mr. Harper also mentioned the limitations on household mixing as a warranted measure based on evidence from the test and trace system but noted that children's inclusion was problematic. He urged for the government to reflect on measures' effectiveness and adjust accordingly.

Minister responded positively towards many of her colleagues' thoughtful contributions, acknowledging the serious nature of the pandemic. She emphasised that while most who die from the virus are older or have underlying health conditions, there are also younger individuals affected without known prior conditions. The Minister highlighted the emerging evidence on 'long covid', indicating long-term health consequences for some even after mild illness.