Thank you very much for that, Cabinet Secretary, because it is a sad day for a very well-established business with an excellent reputation. Twenty-six years and 165 employees, the loss of the company carries not just financial consequences, but the human cost is tangible. Now, I’ve spoken to the founder and managing director, I’ve spoken to operational staff and to workers in the field, and the sense of shock and disbelief is overwhelming.

I do understand that there is much we cannot discuss, as the administrator is still evaluating the situation, and the questions I raise with you I’ve already raised in part with them. However, I would like your thoughts and commitment to ensuring the following: 77 employees work on a maintenance contract at the local refinery. This contract is going to be taken over by another established maintenance business. Will you ensure that support is given to both Main Port and the new company, so that those 77 employees can be transferred with the full protection of TUPE legislation, quickly and efficiently, because this will secure not just their jobs but also continuity of service for the customer and enable another local company to develop their business? The same goes for an additional five members of Main Port who are transferring to a second company for a second local maintenance contract.

Given the impact of the closure of Murco, and I think it’s very clear that, as one of their major customers, Murco going into liquidation or closing down was a real body blow. Are you able to offer the same level of additional help and support that Murco employees received to the remaining 83 Main Port staff?

I do wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if you are able to examine the role that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs played in this. The company are clear that they had no notice as to the winding-up order issued by HMRC. There was an ongoing dispute that appears to have been over a number of years, and, although the bulk of the debt was relatively recent, the company were in the process of putting together an official payment plan. And, to be frank, this action: nobody is a winner. HMRC aren’t going to get their money either. Finally, will you please examine whether the long-term financial viability of the company was properly examined by Welsh Government officials before the £650,000 grant was made available? I do acknowledge that business can be a risky enterprise, but, given the size of the debt and the loss of their major customer prior to that grant being awarded, I would wish the public to be satisfied that due diligence was undertaken rigorously. Thank you.