Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your answers to Adam Price and David Rees, and thank you also for what I’m now taking to be your definition of what a sustainable future for steel might mean, which includes the retaining of the two blast furnaces and longer than three years in terms of the support that you’re prepared to provide. If it emerges that a guarantee can’t be given to save both blast furnaces and won’t be given to secure more than three years’ sustained investment, does that mean that you will be reducing the support that you’ve already committed to giving Tata Steel? In your answer to me in questions in July, you indicated that any Welsh Government support to Tata was conditional on sustaining jobs and sustainable steel production for the short and long term, but also that you would work with any alternative buyer—and, of course, the potential of ThyssenKrupp isn’t one that appeals to all of us—but that you would work with them if they would guarantee a sustainable future for the Welsh steel industry. So, if that guarantee doesn’t end up being given, does that mean that existing support will be reduced?

Secondly, I appreciate what you say, that you don’t want to respond to every single press release, but I’m intrigued to know what’s the letter that which you wrote yesterday. Obviously, you’re seeking reassurances on what we’ve heard recently, but are you also seeking reassurances that the press speculation of a $500 million investment in the plant would be forthcoming?

And then, finally, as my other questions have already been answered, last week, or the week before, in response to the question raised by Bethan Jenkins, you indicated that the 49 new full-time job equivalents that had been announced for Tata were part of a strategic plan from Tata in terms of employment, rather than just doing a bit of backfilling or emergency cover. And I’m wondering whether the press speculation that we’ve heard today about job losses seems to contradict that comment. Perhaps you could just give us some clarification on that.