Thank you, First Minister, for an advance copy of the statement. The UK Government is reportedly putting significant pressure on Tata to reverse its decision to sell its UK assets in return for the writing off of its pension deficit liability and a £900 million loan. Could the First Minister clarify and place on the record his understanding as to whether that is the case? And does he understand and possibly even share the natural scepticism of the workforce as to whether a company that has repeatedly favoured its plant in IJmuiden over Port Talbot—most recently in the outright rejection of the rescue plan only a few months ago—can have any credible long-term commitment to steel making in Wales? I have to say anyone who’s seen the McKinsey plan may be forced to conclude that the way in which Port Talbot was mismanaged by Tata Steel Europe at that level was a contributory factor in the severity of the problems it faced. Surely, handing back the keys to these same decision makers over the heads of local managers and workers is not something we in Wales should readily support, when there are other, better, locally owned alternatives.

Would the First Minister also accept that allowing an extremely well-resourced global conglomerate like Tata, which last year made some £4 billion in net profit, to walk away from its pension responsibilities would create a moral hazard in setting a precedent that would permit other transnational companies to do the same? Is he also concerned—as I am—that Downing Street’s apparent preference for a swift, deceptively simple back-room deal with Tata to a fair and transparent sale process may be driven by a desire for politically expedient news before 23 June rather than the long-term interests of the economy and steel communities? While he and I share the same desire for a similar outcome in terms of that referendum, will he agree that, in any case, as the consultation on the proposed changes to the indexation of the pension fund that he referred to does not close until 23 June, it would be premature for any final decision to be made in relation to Tata before that date?

Finally, seeing as Tata is now, curiously, it seems, in the position of adjudicating whether it or one of the bidders should receive substantial public investment being offered, when he meets with Tata next, could he ask, in the interests of a properly transparent process, if they will accept and allow the Steel Council that he referred to to commission a fully independent assessment of the options currently on the table in terms of their benefits and costs, not just for Tata, but for the public—taxpayer and steelworker alike?