Well, I'm grateful to Rhun ap Iorwerth for raising those issues, and we've talked several times before about the Welsh Government's approach to investment in public infrastructure and maximising the publicly available sources of capital funding and the least expensive forms of capital before we use these more complex and more expensive forms of investment. And I know this is something that the Finance Committee has signalled its approval of in terms of a way forward in the past.

Rhun is correct that MIM is not PFI, and I think that's really important to recognise. It incorporates the best of the Scottish non-profit distributing model, such as optimum-risk allocation, whole-of-life costings and performance-based payments, whilst also ensuring that the new investment is classified to the private sector. And private partners, as I've said to Nick Ramsay, will be obligated to help the Government deliver on our objectives in the well-being of future generations Act. So, they'll need to deliver those stretching community benefits, and there will be penalties for the non-delivery of those benefits. They'll also need to commit to the Welsh Government's ethical employment code, and I think that that is very important as well, as well as building with long-term sustainability and environmental efficiency in mind. And MIM differs from the traditional PFI projects also because it won't be used to finance soft services, such as cleaning and catering, which, obviously, were things which led to expensive and inflexible contracts in the historic PFI model, nor will it be used for the financing of capital equipment.

It's also different because the Welsh Government will invest a small amount of risk capital in each scheme, ensuring then that the public sector will participate in any return on investment. And also different again because the public-sector-appointed director will manage the public shareholdings and promote the public interest more widely on those discussions on the board. And the post of a public-sector-appointed director ensures that there's transparency about costs and the performance of private partners as well. But MIM, I think, differs most profoundly and clearly in its active promotion of well-being, value for money and transparency, and it's really instructive, I think, that the United Nations, which has its own agenda for the promotion of people-first PPPs, has included the MIM in its compendium of such schemes, promoting what we're doing here in Wales across the world.

Rhun also talked about profits. Well, of course, there's always an element of profit when we procure infrastructure, however that infrastructure is procured. However, the precise amount of profit will be determined by the performance of the company over the life of the contract. We've run robust procurement processes, and contracts have been awarded to the most advantageous tenders. Furthermore, appropriate allocation of risk, alongside good contract management, will ensure that any profit generated is reasonable. And we're also investing, as I've mentioned, that proportion of risk capital in those MIM schemes to ensure that we can also benefit, on equal terms with private equity investors, on any returns on those investments.

Rhun also asked for some figures, in terms of how much. So, in terms of the A465 scheme, the construction cost value of the A465 scheme is £550 million, excluding non-recoverable VAT. The annual service payment will be in the region of £38 million a year at current prices, excluding that non-recoverable VAT, for 30 years following construction. And this payment is linked to performance, with deductions levied should Future Valleys fail to meet the contract performance requirements. And, of course, the Development Bank of Wales has invested 15 per cent of the required risk capital on equal terms with the other investors, and in due course then will earn a commensurate return, which will then be, of course, reinvested in public services here in Wales.