I'm very happy to give the Member the assurance that we continue to take an interest not just in Port Talbot, but in all of the downstream businesses, and Llanwern in particular, because in the proposals that Tata have made public, they expect there will be direct job losses in Llanwern in two to three years. Actually, the business at Llanwern, in particular its engagement with the auto sector, is highly regarded and it's an area where, if you look at the future needs of the UK economy and the way that vehicles will change, we'll still need those vehicles and we'll still need steel in them as well. So, I do think there's a case to be made that was part of the discussion about what future investment in all of those downstream businesses looks like. And it's why it was so important to make the ask and to get the commitment for coil and slab to be provided for downstream businesses. If you're waiting for an electric arc and you're potentially waiting for two or three years, or potentially more than three years, actually, where does that supply come from for those downstream operations and the hundreds of jobs on each of those sites that are directly employed, as well as all of the indirect ones?

And then also, what do you do—which is why the research point is important—in generating the right type of steel? It's also why I think the UK should not be the only G7 country not able to make primary steel. You're reliant on other parts of the world, potentially on other steel companies from Tata's point of view, because if a carbon border mechanism does come in at some point in 2027, they won't have the option of importing from India, that'll all have to come from the Netherlands, and will they have the capacity to do that? That's a practical challenge that I think needs to be worked through so that there's real confidence that those businesses won't be moved away. Because the quality of what comes from Shotton, Caerphilly, Trostre and Llanwern is highly regarded. The company recognises that and, crucially, their customers do as well.

There's a final point that I think is worth making. It's your point around the people with responsibilities. I think lots of people think that the steel workforce is an ageing workforce, but actually that hasn't been true for a long time. So, if these changes are made, lots of people with ongoing and real material responsibilities and financial liabilities could lose their jobs. If you're in your thirties, it's entirely possible that you have a house, with rent or with a mortgage, with children, with other Bills to pay, and if you lose that employment, how long can a redundancy package make sure that you're still able to meet those responsibilities? The dislocation, socially and economically, is really significant. And that's also why we have consistently made the case in and around the transition board to make sure that, if people are made redundant, there's a route to having proper financial advice that is reputable. Because we have seen in the past, when people have large redundancy payments made, that it doesn't generate the best behaviour from people who see that as an opportunity to make money in an unscrupulous manner. So, we continue to make that case. That's why, in other instances, the company has actually paid for financial advice from a reputable source to be made available. It's an ongoing conversation that we need to be able to have. And again, I reiterate, we need to be able to make the primary case for the best possible outcome and then every other step around that, if we don't get the outcome we want, to try and make sure we have the best possible outcome for the people we're privileged to represent.