Thank you very much for that last comment, because one of the questions I was going to ask, of course, was that this is different from Tesco or Virgin—this is a company in which the Welsh Government has invested, and there's a question, then, about, by enabling Dawnus to exist for another two or three years, whether you've allowed certain contracts to be entered into, by the very fact that the company was allowed to exist to enter into those contracts.

But I want to start with some questions about the Welsh Government's loan and the £1.5 million that's outstanding on that. We're talking about administration here, not liquidation, so this is going to take some time and a court order before you can get your money out of this. Can you confirm that it is a fixed charge that you've got and not a floating charge, and the value of the assets against which that is secured? Just to give us a rough idea of how much is available for other creditors once you and the banks have been paid.

In our earlier written statement, you referred to Dawnus's weakening cash position. Do we know how much money the company is owed by its debtors? And why in particular the confidence that was shown in them in 2016 in a recovery plan has proven unfounded? Because, presumably, that relied, to a certain degree, on any debts that were outstanding at that point being paid swiftly and any future debts being paid swiftly. I think, probably, an element of the confidence shown in this company by other public bodies, such as councils, will be partly based on the green light that you showed Dawnus back in 2016, and I'm wondering whether you agree that that is the case or whether every public body should rely 100 per cent on their own due diligence, rather than look to Welsh Government to be giving indications of confidence in particular companies.

Can you confirm, in particular, that the Welsh European Funding Office funding for the Kingsway development in Swansea is unaffected? I know the council is looking for a new contractor, obviously, to take over that work, but if that funding is at risk in any way, then that is pretty serious.

And then, my final question, which was about the workforce and supply chains: you mentioned that the development bank could step in if necessary, but will you be asking the supply chain companies to be looking to their own banks first, or is this an open offer, effectively, for those companies with cash flow-only problems? I'm not asking you to save them if they're not sustainable companies, but is that an open offer or is it an alternative offer to what the banks may be prepared to do?