Thank you for your statement, Minister. There was initial focus on an advisory group, and, in the media commentary, a lot of that was about Gordon Brown and was he the person to be helping us out of the recovery. But I see from this list you've got a much broader number of people. Can I just clarify that those recovery round-tables are the same thing as the advisory group from outside Wales that was earlier referenced? I know there was involvement from Swansea University and Cardiff University in that list, so has there been—? Is it outside Wales now, and then Wales for the future ones? Or is it—? There was a reference from Darren Millar that surely we should have some people from the private sector in it. You said there were at least two. I can't see any who obviously come from a private business background, or are at least currently working in that, from the list that's been given. I note that the New Economics Foundation, Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research are all heavily represented, and I just wonder: is that accepted and intended, as a Government of the left, that you want to have advice externally with at least greater representation from people of a similar outlook?

You spoke about the recovery document that was published on 24 April, and that seems to be driving, from what you say, a lot of what you're doing, but you also then repeat this strong desire, which I support, for us to come out on a four nations, common basis. Isn't there, though, a tension between that desire to do things in common with the other three nations and their Governments in this respect, and having a document that you didn't consult on before that sets all these equality tests, emphasises the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, says that lifting restrictions must be rooted in distinctively Welsh values? If you insist on all of those things, doesn't that make it more difficult, at least in some areas, to do the lifting of restrictions at the same time as the other nations?

I think you also said that no-one wanted to go back to business as usual. You reference, say, for instance, maintaining environmental changes. Do we really want to maintain the environmental changes that follow from having only 40 per cent of the usual private car use? I think you touched on this a bit, but we can see, in China, a lot of people are going out and buying new cars, and the road use from private vehicles has recovered a lot faster than public transport. But surely a lot of people actually would be quite keen to get back to business as usual and would see business as usual as a lot better than being in the situation we're currently in, and they'll worry that your equality tests and various—what some people might perceive as—ideological requirements for how restrictions should be lifted may slow us getting back to normal and getting the economy going, letting people get out and having their well-being supported by that.

So, we're suffering, I think, particularly in Wales—. There's one study that Sky had of analysis that 43 per cent of Welsh towns were in the most affected categories, ex-industrial communities and coastal towns in particular. And, if you're so concerned about equality, given COVID-19 is increasing those inequalities, surely the most important thing is to lift those restrictions as soon as possible. We see there is now capacity in the NHS. The transmission is below one. We were meant to be squashing the curve, keeping it within the capacity of the NHS. We've done that. Why are you maintaining these restrictions and increasing the economic damage and increasing the negative impact on inequality?