Whilst I welcome the relaxation of restrictions, my objection to these regulations is that they don't go far enough. The First Minister in his statement earlier referred to the need to conduct a balancing act in making decisions about relaxations—the same is true about imposing them in the first place. Whilst the costs of these restrictions seem pretty easy to quantify, we know that there's been a fall of one fifth in our national income in the last quarter, and we know also the cost to the public in other ways through operations that are cancelled in hospitals, or delayed, and the number of deaths for other conditions that have taken place because of the priority given to the treatment of coronavirus patients. But, the benefits, on the other hand, of the restrictions are very much more difficult to quantify.

We know from international comparisons that there isn't that much difference, actually, between countries that have imposed draconian lockdowns and those that have not. The First Minister earlier on referred to the case of Sweden, which he said he'd looked at, and yet, if you look at the experience of Sweden, the costs of their reaction to coronavirus are very much lower than the costs that we've assumed. And Sweden has not suffered in the way that we have in relation to the disease either. At the moment in Sweden, there are only 21 people—21 people—who are in a serious or critical condition through coronavirus. The figure for the UK is 72. A very small number of people are actually suffering significant consequences from contracting the disease.

We know that the principal characteristic of COVID is that most people don't suffer any ill effects whatsoever; they're asymptomatic or they have only a very mild form of the virus. The seven-day moving average for deaths in the United Kingdom at the moment is between 14 and 10. There are many, many other causes of death that exceed those figures, and yet we don't impose a draconian lockdown in order to counteract them. The figure for Sweden is zero at the moment—zero deaths.

So, I wonder whether the Minister might not reconsider the Welsh Government's approach to these regulations and be more bold than they have been. Whilst a relaxation, as I say, is welcome, we need a faster relaxation, a more widespread relaxation, because the benefits in relation to the costs greatly outweigh whatever damage might be done.