There can be no doubt at all that after an intensely difficult year, some degree of certainty, at least in the near term for steelworkers and their families, is very good news indeed, particularly at this time of year. ‘Crisis averted’ for the Welsh steel industry will be welcomed on all sides of the Assembly, but ‘crisis merely delayed’ would be a very different proposition and that’s why I’m sure many of us will want to study the detail of the outcome of the discussions between Tata Steel and the unions. In this regard, can the Cabinet Secretary tell us more based on what he knows about the proposal?

There is a 10-year investment plan promised, we understand, for Port Talbot and for the downstream sites, but only a five-year commitment for the retention of the two blast furnaces and through the employment compact. Is it true that the £1 billion investment plan is effectively self-funded by operations at Port Talbot, and if those targets for earnings are not met the investment would stop, which leaves us with the possibility that we could be back here having the same conversations in 2021? Surely, a 10-year investment plan deserves a 10-year commitment. Could he say what the status now is of the merger discussions with ThyssenKrupp? The principal advantage of the pension fund closure is its attractiveness to potential merger partners or to buyers.

On a broader level, could the Cabinet Secretary say whether he thinks it’s really intolerable for workers in any company to be put in this position, where they have to choose between their pensions and their jobs? Are we setting a dangerous precedent that other solvent companies would seek to exploit? Does he know if the proposal that steelworkers should work to 65 instead of retiring at 60 is back on the table? And, has Tata indicated to him what would happen if steelworkers rejected the pension proposals as they did almost unanimously last year? Finally, what confidence can we have in the board of Tata Steel, which, with the exception of the interim chair, is the very same board that only a few months ago enthusiastically embraced Cyrus Mistry’s plan for divestment and rejected the turnaround plan that it is happily now embracing today?