Diolch, Llywydd. In the course of his statement, the First Minister said that the outlook for coronavirus

'has darkened in many parts of the world', but one country where that is not the case is Sweden. Sweden's had 81,000 cases altogether since the start of the pandemic, but as of yesterday, only 41 people were registered as being in a serious or critical condition, and the seven-day moving average of deaths has now been reduced to between one or two per day.

At the start of the lockdown in Britain, Sweden took a radically different course. They didn't have a compulsory lockdown at all, and Professor Tegnell, who is the chief adviser to the Swedish Government, said that the lockdown would merely postpone infections and deaths and wouldn't prevent them from happening. That seems to be borne out by experience in England, to which the First Minister referred.

On that basis, therefore, would the First Minister agree with me that whilst people must continue to take sensible precautions on their own responsibility in social distancing and avoiding creating risks for those who are vulnerable—the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions—it is now vitally important that we get the economy as up and running as much as we possibly can? Because not only is there an economic cost to the lockdown, but also, of course, there's a cost in people with cases of serious diseases that go undiagnosed or untreated, and, therefore, we should be measured in our response and not panicked by these recent outbreaks in other parts of England.