Diolch, Llywydd. Well, we've heard in the debate this evening a shared view across the Chamber that there is a viable future for steel making in Wales within that transition that supports a stronger, greener future for the Welsh economy. And I think it is very important that that is a clear message that this Senedd sends on a cross-party basis. We've heard today, in particular, from David Rees and John Griffiths, but from others as well, about how extraordinarily difficult things are right now for employees and their families, as well as those within local communities. 

I want to address a number of points made in the debate, briefly, in closing. Sam Kurtz made a speech that I felt was unusually, if I may say, defensive and misrepresentative of the situation. I don't believe there is an audience for political knockabout in relation to a situation where there are 9,000 plus jobs at risk, and the debate should be based upon facts, even where we disagree. So, for the sake of correcting the record, let me explain what the financial commitments that each party has made are: the £500 million from the Conservative Party, I don't believe has yet even been spent; the £80 million, which has been earmarked for the transition board, not a single penny of that has, actually, been spent. Not a single penny of it is helping a single worker. That's the reality on the ground. The Welsh Government is committing funds. We have budgets around ReAct and Communities for Work, which total about £25 million on a Wales-wide basis. Our personal learning accounts budget on a Wales-wide basis is around £21 million. We've extended the eligibility of that for workers at Tata and in the supply chain. They'll be able to claim against those budgets. Those funds are being spent already. Those funds are actively being spent to support the workforce already. So, I think it's important to have that proper context for the discussion. And he talks about 'strings attached'. If the strings that the UK Government have attached to the £500 million are going to lead to 9,000 plus job losses, I think that's a bad deal. I think that is a bad deal and a better deal could have been struck by a better UK Government. 

I'll address the points that both Luke Fletcher and Adam Price made, in an effort—and I accept the goodwill effort—to seek alternatives to the plan. I don't see how the compulsory purchase of one asset in an integrated steel production facility by a body that has no capacity to manage those assets can be part of the solution. I think that the points that David Rees made in the debate exploring that are good points, they're valid points, they show an open mind. But I think there are very significant questions around that proposal. Similarly, in relation to the nationalisation of Tata, I don't think that reflects—