Therefore, we move to item 6, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the Circuit of Wales, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Members will know, from my written statement issued earlier today, that the Cabinet met this morning to consider a decision on whether the Welsh Government is able to provide a financial guarantee to the Circuit of Wales project at Ebbw Vale. We’ve been working to support the development of this project for a significant period of time, both in financial terms and the time spent by Welsh Government with those behind the project. I’m confident that the resources we have committed over the past few years are fully justified for such an ambitious project. At the same time, we have always been very clear that any financial guarantees and risks taken by the public sector had to be proportionate and fair.

I will briefly summarise events over the past 12 months for Members’ benefit. In July last year I told the company that I would expect to see at least 50 per cent of the project funded and 50 per cent of the financial risk of the project to be undertaken by the private sector, and for the project as a whole to provide value for money for Welsh Government and the public purse.

In February the developers submitted a new proposal to Welsh Government, which was followed by a formal application in April, requesting a guarantee of a loan facility of £210 million. Extensive and detailed due diligence by external experts employed by Welsh Government has shown that due to the way that the deal is structured, the current proposal would see the Welsh Government exposed to more than 50 per cent of the risk. This is because the £210 million underwriting element would carry a higher risk than other parts of the financial package. As a result, following discussions with Office for National Statistics and Her Majesty’s Treasury during the due diligence process, it is assessed that there is a very significant risk that the full £373 million debt of the entire Circuit of Wales project would be classified against Welsh Government capital spending.

Over the next three years, this would have the same impact on Welsh Government budgets as if we had already spent the money and would place a significant limit on our ability to deliver current and future projects to improve Welsh infrastructure, housing, hospitals or schools. Cabinet, therefore, today decided that the potential impact on the public finances of the current proposal before them was too great and we are therefore unable to offer the financial guarantee requested on this proposal.

I do recognise that many people in Ebbw Vale and across south Wales will be disappointed by our decision, especially as the company has generated some very high expectations of the jobs that would be created. In addition, many people were pinning their hopes on this project to bring wider economic benefits for the south Wales Valleys, particularly the broader Heads of the Valleys. The due diligence made clear that the main benefit to the local economy, and the majority of new jobs, would not be created at the circuit itself, but by separate businesses, particularly in the engineering and automotive sectors, clustering in the location as part of a proposed technology park to follow at a later date. In total, both the circuit and the technology park, according to due diligence, would likely fall substantially short of the 6,000 jobs figure. Based on our previous experience, we also believe the technology park proposal could well require significant additional public funding.

Recognising the economic potential this type of development would bring, and the fact that the people of Blaenau Gwent, and the wider Valleys have waited long enough for the promised jobs, Cabinet this morning agreed to move ahead with a new and significant project. The Welsh Government is committing to building a new automotive technology business park in Ebbw Vale, with funding of £100 million over 10 years, with the potential to support 1,500 new full-time jobs and act as a catalyst for economic growth across the south Wales Valleys. We will begin this stand-alone project with the delivery of 40,000 sq ft of manufacturing space on land currently in public ownership. In addition, we will work with our partners to explore the potential of locating a south Wales metro depot in the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone, and introduce programmes to support new and existing employers in Blaenau Gwent on skills development within the local workforce.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Politics is about difficult decisions, and today’s in relation to the Circuit of Wales was no exception. I do not take the impact of this decision lightly, and neither do my Cabinet colleagues. We made every effort to make this project work. However, this is about getting the decisions right, and getting the right investment into Blaenau Gwent and the wider south Wales Valleys—investment that is sustainable, long term and that genuinely benefits local communities. It’s my wish that these new initiatives move forward as quickly as possible for the people of Ebbw Vale and the south Wales Valleys.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today. Today’s decision to reject the Circuit of Wales will clearly be disappointing to the people of Blaenau Gwent. It is, I think, incredibly disappointing that it has taken six years and in excess of £9 million of public money for the Cabinet Secretary to reject this project, which of course could have been as significant an investment in the south Wales Valleys as has ever been seen. And, of course, it would have been transformational for the region and an investment of that scale would have signalled, most certainly, that Wales is open for business, providing investment in an area of Wales that desperately requires inward investment. It is therefore, of course, a huge blow for the region.

What is confusing is the disconnect, I think, between the Cabinet Secretary’s statement and evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by a senior civil servant in the department who claimed that the money spent to date on the Circuit of Wales had represented good value for money and provided a significant project that is ready for delivery. You can’t both be right in that regard, so can I ask you for your views on that in particular?

Second, in your statement you suggest that there is a risk that the full debt of the entire project would be classified against Welsh Government capital spending, but advice that has been received from the firm whose job it is to advise on the balance sheet has suggested that it would be a package of funding that was underpinned by a new sort of risk-based support, in the form of a Government guarantee. So, what I would ask is that—. And that there would be no additional borrowing to the Government. So, I would be grateful for some comments on that.

My understanding was that the project would be classified to private sector because the Welsh Government would not have enough influence over the Circuit of Wales to call it a public body, and would not be providing enough financial support so that it becomes publicly funded, because total public sector support would have made up about 50 per cent of the overall funding. So, I would therefore be grateful if you could explore in more detail why the Treasury and ONS came to a different conclusion and suggested it would be classified against Welsh Government capital spending.

Can I ask what intention does the Welsh Government have to claw back the funding that has been invested in companies directly associated with the holding company? The project estimated that there would be the creation of 6,000 full-time jobs, in areas ranging from research and development to hospitality, with a further 3,000 construction jobs. Can I ask why you feel that the assessment was so wide off the mark? What is your assessment of the consequences that the rejection will have on the confidence that private investors have in investing in Wales in general in the future?

I’ll give one example here: the Welsh Government has previously announced that the next TVR series will be built in Wales, and the Welsh site was expected to be announced imminently. Given that this had been planned to be the centrepiece manufacturing site in the Circuit of Wales development, can you confirm that today’s announcement will not affect that? The reason I ask that is that a TVR spokesperson is now refusing to confirm that this car will be built in Wales at all. So, can you confirm that the project will go ahead here in Wales, and will you confirm what talks you’ve had with TVR about locating them here in the new automotive development that you announced today? I do have to say that this decision will—I hope not, but I think it will possibly threaten inward investment opportunities and potentially destroy confidence in the Welsh economy. I hope that is shown to be wrong.

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I think the Member is right to say that there will be disappointment that, after almost seven years, this project is not able to go ahead. Insofar as questions about why it has taken so long are concerned, they should be levelled in part at the development company. For our part, we have tried at every occasion to make this project work. It’s gone through a number of guises in terms of the business model, and on each occasion we have worked with the developers in an attempt to deliver for the people of Blaenau Gwent and the wider Heads of the Valleys area.

But I do believe that, as a consequence of considerable work that’s being undertaken, not just through due diligence but before, we are in a position that is well-informed to be able to take forward that second phase of the Circuit of Wales proposal, which is the technology park. We are now armed with considerable intelligence regarding the demand for a technology park in Blaenau Gwent and the need for us to support what is a strong, existing tier 2 sector of the automotive industry. One of the primary factors that, to date, has prevented investors from locating not just in the Valleys, but in many parts of Wales, is the lack of available industrial space to develop and manufacture their goods. So, the difference between the proposal for the track and the proposal for the technology park amounts to hundreds of full-time, sustainable jobs. I’ve been very clear that the world will not wait for Wales to develop advanced automotive technologies, we need to be leading the world, and Blaenau Gwent has been waiting long enough. If we were to wait for phase 2 to be delivered by the development company, we could be left behind insofar as autonomous vehicles are concerned and electric vehicles. We need to move now, and Blaenau Gwent could become Britain’s centre of excellence for new technology in the automotive sector.

The Member rightly asks about evidence given by the deputy permanent secretary, and I would caution any Members from naming civil servants who are not able to respond personally in this Chamber. I would say that I believe that the deputy permanent secretary was right in the evidence that he gave, but at the time of committing our initial funding, the developer’s proposal was for a project that would be fully funded by the private sector, but which needed Welsh Government support in its early stages and to get off the ground. We’ve also—as a consequence of the work that’s gone into due diligence and the project—been able to take forward the proposals for the technology park.

In terms of the question of the debt being on balance sheet, of course, the Member will be aware that you cannot get a definitive answer until all contracts are signed off. Even then, it can take many, many months. Essentially, moving forward with a decision on the basis of the very high risk of it being on balance sheet would be dangerous—dangerous for the Welsh Treasury and dangerous for the taxpayer and public funds, because it could, in several months’ time, lead to Welsh Government having to cancel existing capital build projects. I would invite Members to identify £157 million of projects across Wales at present that could be stopped as a consequence of this project.

In terms of additional borrowing, additional borrowing would likely need to be of strategic national importance, but this is something that is being taken up with UK Government, and clawback of any investment and any funds already committed to the project will, of course, be dependent on the future of the Heads of the Valleys development company, but, of course, we are examining that.

In terms of the estimate of jobs to be created from the proposal, I have heard Members in this Chamber use, on many occasions, the figure of 6,000 jobs. Whilst that figure is apparent on the website for the Circuit of Wales, it is a figure that is not reflected in due diligence and, indeed, due diligence finds that the actual likely number of jobs to be created is significantly lower than that. I think there is also a need to recognise that there are two different phases to the project, which will produce two different numbers of jobs created. The first phase would create far fewer lasting jobs than the second phase. That’s why I believe the people of Ebbw Vale deserve that second phase now rather than later. In terms of developing the technology park, we’re already engaged with the industry, with stakeholders. I’ll be convening a meeting of experts and stakeholders from the area as soon as possible—I’m hoping next week. We’ve spoken with TVR, with Aston Martin Lagonda and with Jaguar Land Rover: all confirm that the track is not an essential component of development within Wales. As far as TVR is concerned, we are looking forward to their new product being launched in the autumn and manufactured here in Wales.

In one fell swoop, we’ve gone today from being the future location of the Circuit of Wales to the endless location of the circus of Wales, because we are now an international laughing stock as a result of the shamateurism displayed by the Government. Now then, there must be a day of reckoning, I’m afraid, for the mistakes that have been made, but today let’s focus on the questions.

Can he say when he first received advice that the Welsh Government was exposed to more than 50 per cent of the risk, and when he was told by ONS and Treasury this meant that the project could be on balance sheet? Is he aware that one of the most senior officials involved in the project wrote to Aviva on 14 June and said, and I quote, ‘The good news is that at the moment there does not appear to be any showstoppers’? Are we really led to believe that the Government was not aware of the balance sheet issue on 14 June, but that became the mother of all showstoppers just 13 days later? Either you’d left it to the very last minute after six years of deliberation and £50 million had been spent, including £9 million plus of public money—in which case this is the most serious case of negligence in the sorry history of this Government—or you did know, in which case Aviva were misled. According to another e-mail in my possession from Aviva, this would not be the first time, as they claim that the statement made at the time of the first rejection in April 2016 does not, in fact, reflect the true facts of the matter. If that’s true, that will have not just the most serious political consequences, but also legal ones. So, can the Cabinet Secretary say what provision has he made for any legal charges or costs that may result from any litigation that is likely to be brought by the partners?

On the jobs figure, can he say what the jobs figure was that the company provided in its submission? Because in a statement this afternoon, they say it was not 6,000 as he claims in his statement. Whatever that figure—[Interruption.] Well, I am asking him if he can respond to the statement they’ve made this afternoon. Whatever that figure is, you say in your statement that your own due diligence came up with a different figure for the total combined between the circuit and the technology park. Can you say what that figure is? And will he now publish the external due diligence as opposition parties have asked, so we can see the full facts of the case?

Finally, he said that he’s made every effort in this case. Did he actually contact the investors, Aviva, FCC—the construction company—and the Heads of the Valleys Development Company when this problem was identified, in order to try and resolve it? That’s what I would call making every effort to implement this project and its potential.

Finally, on the TVR issue, TVR have said that,

‘The proposed factory site we have selected for TVR in Ebbw Vale was strongly influenced by the potential siting of the Circuit of Wales project’.

That’s in a letter to him. Can he say categorically today that TVR will still be based, not in Wales, but in Ebbw Vale and if he can’t will you resign?

I can tell Members, as I said in my contribution to Russell George, that we have spoken to TVR, Aston Martin Lagonda, Jaguar Land Rover and other stakeholders. As far as TVR is concerned, the plans are still there to build the car with the launch this autumn and to build it in Blaenau Gwent. We are working incredibly closely, not just with TVR, but with the supply chain to ensure that we get maximum benefit from that new product, which will be proudly built in Blaenau Gwent. We will continue to support TVR, Aston Martin, Toyota, Ford and all other parts of the Welsh automotive sector.

I think it’s foolish to believe that you could approve a project without undergoing thorough due diligence, which is what the Member has repeatedly called on Welsh Government to do since last summer. I think it’s foolish, because it’s only through the process of due diligence that we were able to then go to ONS and Her Majesty’s Treasury and be able to assess the risk in the way that it’s weighted and the likelihood of it being on balance.

In terms of the note that he mentions concerning Aviva, and the way that there appears to be, at the moment, no showstoppers, well, the whole point of due diligence is that you strip away all of what appears to be the case and you actually get to the facts and then the facts are scrutinised accordingly. I know that the Member has been tweeting quite busily today about the legal charges. I can say that Welsh Government is not liable for costs incurred by any of the other parties in developing the project and we are not anticipating any claims for costs being made.

My officials have held weekly meetings with the Heads of the Valleys Development Company—weekly meetings—to ensure that every opportunity is given to make this project workable. I do think that whilst this has been a test for Welsh Government, of course, this has also been a test for this institution. And it’s important that each and every Member scrutinises every proposal that crosses a desk, and I think it’s absolutely essential, moving forward, that Members do just that.

Well, there can be no better illustration of the dead hand of Government than this decision today, and the contrast is most instructive between what’s going on an hour away from Cardiff along the M4 by James Dyson creating an international technology park, which is going to cost between £2 billion and £3 billion, and our utter failure to be able to be the handmaiden of private finance for what would otherwise have been a transformational project in Ebbw Vale—a place that, goodness knows, needs every helping hand that it can get. [Interruption.] The Member for Blaenau Gwent can make silly party-political points, but I don’t think they will impress his constituents, who are going to be the victims of his own Government’s failure of imagination today.

I notice that the Cabinet Secretary didn’t actually give an answer to Adam Price a moment ago about publication of the due diligence, and I think this is absolutely vital. In fact, I think, in the presence of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, it’s now clearly incumbent upon us to have the most wide-ranging investigation of the way in which this dismal story has unfolded over the course of the last six years. Are we really expected to believe that the Government accounting conventions about whether something is to be classified as public expenditure or private by the ONS and the Treasury have come as a blinding revelation today or yesterday and the Cabinet was totally unaware of these conventions hitherto? Why have we not heard this point at any stage in the past couple of years since this project has become a viable possibility in political terms?

The funding structure of this project, although the numbers have changed, has been, in principle, the same since the start. We know that the Government has never been asked to put any public money in upfront; it’s always been asked for a secondary contingent guarantee of private sector senior debt, which would crystallise only in circumstances when the site had been fully developed. So, what the Government liability would have been is an annual figure to refund the senior investors if the Circuit of Wales promoters were unable to pay the interest on their bonds, starting at the earliest in 2024 and ending in 2057. So, we’re asked to believe that we have to capitalise the whole of this expenditure today when none of it is going fall due until 2024, and only then on a one thirty third basis—on a 3 per cent per annum basis—which will actually come out of the Government’s annual managed expenditure. And so quite why this needs to be capitalised at this stage and then torpedo the entire project is a matter that must be regarded as of the utmost seriousness, because here accounting conventions, rather than the substance of the project, are the dagger that the Cabinet Secretary has plunged into the heart of the project. The reason for that has not been explained, because it is a contingent guarantee that may never be called, because, if the racetrack were to be built and were able to pay the lenders less than half of the cost of construction—what they’re due under their current contracts—then the project would not be in danger at all, and nothing would ever come onto the Government’s accounts. So, I’m at a total loss to understand why this possibility—which may be called upon at some future date, but only on that limited basis—should now be regarded as one big sum that could fall due immediately, because that will never happen.

And, therefore, what I want to know is why this issue has not been addressed hitherto between the Welsh Government and the Treasury or the Office for National Statistics, and why it is that the people of Ebbw Vale, most of all, have been led up the garden path until this side of a general election,

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions. I was very clear, last summer, when I said that the project developers needed to ensure that 50 per cent of the finance and 50 per cent of the risk fell on the shoulders of the private sector to ensure that we have value for money and to ensure that it didn’t come on balance sheet. It’s the due diligence process, which was only completed just a few weeks ago, that revealed the weighting risk. It’s because of that due diligence that we were able to discover the high risk of it coming on balance sheet. But the Member, I think, is then conflating the long-term liability over 33 years and the immediate risk of it being brought onto balance sheet.

Now, insofar as due diligence is concerned, let’s not forget that the Member, again, urged me not to embark on a thorough process of due diligence, but it is my belief that this has demonstrated the value of due diligence. I am seeking agreement from the Heads of the Valleys Development Company and the consultants who carried out the due diligence to publish a summary document of the documents. However, the fit-and-proper-persons test and also legal due diligence will be excluded from the publication. As soon as I have that agreement from the consultants and the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, I will move forward with publishing that document and I will place it in the Assembly Library.

I would urge the Member as well, and all Members who are critical of Government today, of me today, of the developers today, to now work constructively to ensure that the technology park—the £100 million that we’re going to be investing in it and in the skills of the people within the Heads of the Valleys area—is a success. We need to make sure the technology park utilises new and emerging technologies, that it employs people closer to their homes, and delivers the sort of prosperity that I think we all wish to see in the Valleys communities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my deep disappointment at this decision today. As the Cabinet Secretary is aware, I’ve been a supporter of this project, as has my local authority in Torfaen, believing that it would be a transformative thing for the Heads of the Valleys area, particularly with our strong record of automotive manufacturing in Torfaen. I, too, am puzzled that we could hit such a major stumbling block at such a very late stage after seven years of consideration of this project. I do think there are very serious questions that need to be answered and I will look forward to seeing the information on the due diligence that you’ve committed to publishing.

I would like to press you on this issue of the 50 per cent risk not having been met, because it remains the contention of the developers that they have provided the appropriate money and that they met the criteria on it being less than 50 per cent risk falling to Welsh Government. Your statement refers to the way that that has been structured and I would be grateful for more clarity on that. It does seem to me that a very late rabbit has been pulled out of the hat, to some extent, in terms of this technology park, and there’s a lot of emphasis in your statement on meeting the needs of Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent, which is absolutely right—the expectations have been high there and people need to have something delivered. But, for me, this project was about much more than Blaenau Gwent—it was about the whole Heads of the Valleys area, including my constituency. So, I would like to know precisely how you intend to ensure that this technology park will deliver for my constituents, what the plan is to involve local partners, not just in Blaenau Gwent, but in Torfaen and the other neighbouring local authorities, and also how you will intend, going forward, to keep local Members informed, and how you will set out a concrete plan going forward. Thank you.

Can I thank Lynne Neagle for her questions? I do recognise the strong support that she has given the proposal. I recognise that she has been consistent over many years in supporting the project and I do share her remorse at the fact that we are not able to offer the guarantee that was sought. But I do believe that, reluctantly, it would have been wholly irresponsible to have granted that guarantee, given the likely impact that it would have had on the public purse. As I said in my statement this morning, it would potentially have had an immediate impact on major infrastructure, housing, hospital and school build programmes. Nonetheless, I do recognise that the Member and many of her colleagues have been determined in promoting the need for transformational change in the Valleys, and that is what I am determined to ensure the technology park achieves.

I’ll be working with further education colleagues, with local authorities, with the enterprise zone in Ebbw Vale, I’ll be working with experts in the automotive sector in Industry Wales to ensure that we gain maximum value from our plan, a £100 million plan, to create 1,500 quality full-time jobs for the people of the Valleys in south Wales. This is not a late rabbit. We have known for some time that there is a tier 2 automotive sector that requires support in order to grow, expand, and be at the forefront of the global market, but what this process has highlighted is that, with that demand, there is currently a lack of available space and support. We intend to challenge that, to deal with it, to address it, and to make sure that the automotive sector in the region can grow and prosper.

The project has changed many times over the past seven years. The company’s been aware of the need to ensure that the risk is kept beneath 50 per cent, and I do appreciate that the issue of 50 per cent ONS classifications can be confusing, but the risk profile of the different tranches of the project funding is relevant to the assessment of the effective weight of the Welsh Government guarantee. The different tranches, Presiding Officer, are exposed to significantly different levels of risk, and, based on the guidance, we would expect ONS and Eurostat in their assessment to weight tranches bearing a higher level of risk more heavily than tranches that bear a lower level of risk. A risk-weighted assessment would certainly imply the Welsh Government bearing more than 50 per cent of the weight of the project funding, even if—even if—our guarantee is seen as less than 50 per cent of the total unweighted funding, and that’s the difference between appearing to meet the criteria and actually meeting the criteria. The Member is shaking his head, but he should well know this, having served in Government, albeit 30 or 40 years ago.

Now, I think it’s absolutely essential that—[Interruption.]—. It’s absolutely essential that we avoid committing ourselves to expensive projects that could lead to the cancellation of hospitals, schools or house building. Nonetheless, we will take forward this plan for Ebbw Vale, for Blaenau Gwent, and for the Heads of the Valleys, and I’d urge again Members to work with us. Collectively, we can make a difference, and I’d urge Members to do just that.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. I have had my concerns about this project from the beginning. Four years ago I put in my local newsletter for my constituents, which shows—four years ago, 2013—. I will read a couple of my concerns for this project: a developer exaggerating the figure they put for the jobs; high-profile events, such as this one—how MotoGP will be attracted to the circuit when they have contractual obligations with other race tracks, not only this one—and how developers are going to raise this £300 million. That was a concern. The money, of course, will come from the private sector, but from where? All these four, and all a long list, they never satisfied then, and I think they have never satisfied now. I, indeed, have a copy of this for you to look at. All along, I have stressed the need for due diligence to apply to the financial requirements of this project, and believe the results have justified my call for caution and concern.

The Welsh Government committed over £9 million of taxpayers’ money to these projects in the last four or five years, which was totally unnecessary. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what lessons his department has learnt in view of the critical Wales Audit Office study of this funding? Also, would he like to send his two officials into the Public Accounts Committee? If so, when? This decision will, of course, be met with disappointment and dismay in Ebbw Vale. It’s my region and I’d love to see this region prosper like Cardiff and other areas like London. There are great people and nice people there, and there is a great opportunity. So, I welcome his announcement of a new automotive technology business park in Ebbw Vale, and I hope that gets success. Can I ask what discussions he has had with business organisations and the local authorities about this park? What initiatives will be offered for businesses who locate and relocate in this area? Will he agree to provide a further statement as soon as possible for information—when he receives it—for the various business and investors? Like he just mentioned earlier to others, I don’t want to repeat; most of my colleagues have shown the concerns regarding your decision, but I think your decision is perfectly perfect. Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for his contribution? I am happy to commit to bring forward details of the technology park project at speed, and to ensure that regular updates are provided to Members. I’ve already spoken with a number of stakeholders in the region and stakeholders within the sector, and there is widespread support for the development of a technology park. I’ve also spoken with experts such as Chris Sutton, who has been clear that one of the big barriers to investing in the Valleys has been the lack of suitable industrial units, and, as I’ve said, we will be addressing that challenge.

In terms of lessons learned, I think there is one major lesson that should be learned from this process: that no matter what the promises are, it’s only through a thorough process of due diligence that we can truly assess whether a project stacks up, whether it’s viable and whether it is the right project for the people that it’s designed for. I am keen to ensure that investors looking at Wales can have confidence in the Welsh Government to carry out an objective process of due diligence, to support their business growth and their investment in Wales, and to have the guarantee that the Welsh Government, as a partner of business, will do all we can to help their employment prospects grow and prosper.

In 2013—the Member produced a newsletter in which he expressed concerns, I think, about the jobs figure. The 6,000 jobs figure that’s been much promoted and widely repeated has been found to be a significant overstatement and that, again, was found as part of the due diligence process. In all fairness to the project promoters, the 6,000 jobs figure is not something that they say they are responsible for being promoted in the media, but that figure is nonetheless on their website at the moment, and the facts of the matters are that it is overstated and that the real jobs are actually there in phase 2, which we, as a Welsh Government, are now determined to deliver.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.