Thank you for those questions. I'll try to answer them in turn. I think, in many ways, the Member's comments compound the problem we've been seeing, in that there's been a very different perception of the way the city deal is being run depending on which part of the M4 you're coming from. So, the Member's repeating many of the things I've heard said from the city deal end, which is a different perspective from the one in the reports and the one that the Governments have. So, for example, he repeats the call that money be released in an early way to allow these projects to proceed, but we can't release money until there has been a proper business case agreed and submitted. So, I think that is irresponsible—to call for public money to be endorsed in this way without the proper checks and balances put in place.

He also says: why is it that the different parties are not talking to each other? Well, I'm not sure if he's had a chance to properly read both the reports, but I'd suggest that it's worth the investment of time, because it does address many of the points that he asks. So, for example, on page 13 of the independent report by the local authorities, it says, and I quote, that 'business cases are presented to UK and Welsh Governments prematurely, resulting in UK and Welsh Governments undertaking due diligence checks they'd expect the regional office to have undertaken, which is further frustrating the process.'

And I think that this is at the heart of the matter, that much of this challenge and rigour, which the report, led by Pembrokeshire, says was not in place, should be done at a local level and has not been done at the local level. The cases are then sent to the different Governments, who are then having to knock them back because they're not ready, which is creating further tension and misunderstanding and fuelling the degree of suspicion there has been. If they had the skill set and the portfolio approach embedded,  they'd be able to carry out those checks on each other, rather than passing them to us to be checked and prematurely submitting those business cases, and I think that really has been at the heart of the problem. So, it's incumbent on us now to reset the way this deal has been operated to give it the best chance of success and to help the local authorities to be able to carry out those checks themselves. 

He mentions again, as he did yesterday, the Egin being fully occupied and officially opened and the funding not released. Again, my understanding is the funding in the city deal is for phase 2 of the Egin. It's phase 1 of the Egin that is open and has been occupied, not phase 2. So, I think there's a misunderstanding there about what projects we're talking about.

He asks about a portfolio director being in place by the end of April 2019. Is that realistic? I don't think it is realistic. We could, of course, press ahead with appointing someone, but I think it's really important that the right person gets this job. So, I think we should be more charitable in the way we look at that suggested deadline.

He also asks have we been in discussions with the university. Of course, the university are not partners in the city deal; they're partners of some of the projects within the city deal. And, now that we're moving to a portfolio approach, it's for the city deal themselves to decide how they flex and change the current range of projects they have within their portfolio and whether or not there's still the same appetite to go ahead with them and whether or not they can pass the tests that remain in place.