Well, first of all, I’m sorry I gave a direct answer to a question she asked; she was clearly knocked backwards by it verbally. But let me give you some more direct answers: the project six years ago is not the same project as the project we dealt with. It has changed many times in terms of its financial structure. The project that we looked at was a project that we had seen recently in the course of the last few months. It’s a project, of course, that was based on the guarantee that’s out there publicly. We looked at the financial structure that was proposed, we went through the due diligence, and the due diligence revealed that there was a very high risk of the cost or the guarantee being regarded as being on balance sheet. I don’t know if she knows what that means, but ‘on balance sheet’ means that it'll be treated as if we had given the company money now. It would mean we would find £157 million-worth of capital reductions in this financial year—that’s the risk that we took. We worked with the company to see what we could do to help. There was a meeting between the company and officials after the decision. It was explained to the company what the issues were, and they accepted it. They clearly haven’t spoken to her because the company accepted the issue with regard to the issue of being on balance sheet and the risks that that posed to us—they did not argue with it. Could I suggest she talks, perhaps, to the company to take their view on this?

One thing that Plaid Cymru have never said is whether they agreed with the decision or not. Until we know whether they agree or not, so we can assess whether they think that there are high risks to be taken with Welsh public spending, then, of course, I cannot accept a lecture from the leader of Plaid Cymru.