Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for responding to the statement today as well? Could I also express my congratulations to, certainly, the trade unions for bringing this to a conclusion just before Christmas, anyway, and giving at least some comfort?

But I do share the concerns of both Adam Price and David Rees on what faith we should place in the commitments that Tata Steel have given today. It was only this time last week that we were standing here and asking you questions about what you thought about the commitments that Tata Steel were able to give and, at the time, you mentioned that you weren’t prepared to, understandably, respond to press speculation, and I respect that, but can you give us an indication of how much you—or, at least, it may have been the First Minister—were kept in the loop over what’s been happening over this last week? I appreciate some of that information might have been given in confidence and shouldn’t necessarily be shared, but I think we would all like some reassurance that nobody in Government has been frozen out from being fully involved in the conversation that’s been taking place over the last week, if not longer than that.

Secondly, to go back to the point that Adam Price raised—because obviously, there is a discrepancy between five years and 10 years here. While I understand the Welsh Government’s willingness to only commit to a certain period of time on this, you may remember questions I’ve raised before about what the Welsh Government is able to do in terms of securing the public purse against potential breaches of conditions, not by Tata necessarily but by future purchasers or, in this case, mergers. We’ve all expressed our concerns about ThyssenKrupp here in the past.

Now, I note in your statement today, which I’ve seen fairly recently, that the wider package—this £4 million that you’re making available—will be subject to agreeing the detail of legally binding conditions. I’d be grateful, first of all, if you could confirm who will be legally bound by those conditions, because there’s always the potential that this arrangement—in the next 10 years, Port Talbot, in particular, could be subject to yet another sales option. Secondly, to what extent will you be able to make the details of those conditions available to us as Assembly Members? I recognise that commercial confidentiality will have a role here, but bearing in mind particularly what David Rees mentioned on the issue of trust earlier on, I wouldn’t like to think that that was used as an excuse for not sharing with us those that, legally, you can. Thank you.