I don't accept virtually all of what the Member has said, and I regret the tone and the manner in which it's been put. This Government has fought for the steel sector over a number of years. Since the proposals were made, we have worked alongside trade unions and their representatives, not just in national office, but the reps within the workplace as well. The steelworkers themselves are genuine experts in how to run the site. If you were to talk to a group of steelworkers and their reps, I don't think they would say that this Government has not fought for them and is not continuing to fight for them; I don't think you would find that they believe that the time to go to India has long since passed.

We've been working with steel trade unions in understanding the nature of the negotiations they're having and when ministerial intervention could make a difference. And, in fact, when the leadership of Tata were here for two days, they were in talks with the steel trade unions; that's what they were doing. And we need to understand what is taking place within those negotiations, how we use our influence. That's why the economy and energy Secretary had a conversation with the steel trade unions last week, to understand where things have gone. That's why we had to make immediate choices about whether to go to Mumbai or not. I believe any First Minister of any party would, should and must have gone to Mumbai in the time frame that I did. It was the right thing to do, and I'm proud to have done so, and prouder still to keep on making the case and fighting for the investment that I believe could make a difference.

I reject the way that he categorised investment in key sectors of the economy as a bung for private industry. That sort of language will not go down well with the workforce who work there. You could say the same thing about lots of our other anchor employers. You wouldn't talk about the investment in skills in Airbus as a bung for the company to stay here. It's part of the grown-up relationship we need to have about how we grow our economy and secure work and investment in here for the communities that we are privileged to represent.

When it comes to the future of the EAF, I think it's really important that we recognise that an EAF is part of the future. There will be more EAF production, and I think that's the right thing to see happen. As a Government, we always have to be able to and prepared to do more than one thing at the same time. That's making the case for the future we want, and preparing for the futures that could come down to us. No-one would forgive us if we did not make preparations for Tata to implement the plan they're talking about publicly. That's exactly what we're doing. It is not acceptance that that will simply happen, and we are going along or just coalescing in that. Our fight is a genuine one for the future, and I'd hope that, within and outside the Chamber, we can get back to having as joined up a response as possible to maximise the impact that this Parliament and this Government can make for a future that I believe our steelworkers deserve.