I commend the First Minister on his statement. In particular I endorse warmly his remarks about Roger Maggs, the chairman of Excalibur and a school friend of mine from many, many years ago at Amman Valley. And I endorse all that Adam Price—another distinguished product of my old school—said in his response to your statement also about the pension fund at Tata.

You mentioned, a moment ago, that this could be dealt with in the same way that the British Coal pension fund was dealt with, but the difference between the two, of course, is that there is a deficit in the Tata pension fund and there’s a massive surplus in the British Coal pension fund, from which the Government has siphoned off a very large sum of money for its own purposes.

Tata just can’t be allowed to get away with walking away from their responsibilities to the steelworkers of Port Talbot and elsewhere. The pension fund is currently worth about £14.5 billion and there’s a deficit, I understand, of about £500 million. These are not the only assets that Tata owns in the United Kingdom. Of course, they own Jaguar Land Rover and the profit on Jaguar Land Rover for the last reported year was £3.6 billion. So, Tata can well afford to plug the hole in the steel pension fund in Port Talbot and elsewhere, and I think they should be held to their responsibilities. I certainly endorse the point on moral hazard that Adam Price made.

I warmly endorse the First Minister’s efforts, including going to Mumbai, to try to resolve this crisis, but, of course, he is constrained by the limits on his powers, as indeed is the Secretary of State at Westminster. The Minister said in his statement that his primary concern has been that steel communities need to secure a long-term sustainable steel industry for the whole Tata operation in Wales, but, unfortunately, of course, he’s not able to do that because energy prices in this country are 50 per cent higher than elsewhere in the EU and we have been unable to impose—[Interruption.] This is Unite’s own document that says this—the trade union—so you can take their word for it or take it up with them if you disagree. And we have, as regards tariffs on steel, had a pathetically inadequate response from the European Commission and an even more pathetically inadequate response from the UK Government because all that the EU Commissioners propose is a 24 per cent tariff, whereas the United States has put a 522 per cent tariff on cold-rolled steel, which is a vital ingredient in the production at Port Talbot.

There is also, of course, the possibility that a new buyer could be found for those steel assets. The British Government would be woefully restricted in the amount of aid that they could give to a new purchaser and even more restricted if Tata retains the ownership because of the EU’s state aid rules. Similarly, in the statement, the First Minister said that, as regards transport contract documents, the Welsh Government expects that any contractors would not use dumped steel from an overseas market. Well, an expectation, of course, is not worth the paper it’s printed on. There is no legal power in the UK Government or the British Government to require users of steel in this country to exclude dumped steel from what they do.

So, unfortunately, what we are faced with, because of our membership of the EU, is that Government either at Westminster or in Cardiff is powerless to take the decisions that are vital to the continued production of steel in south Wales. And I’m afraid that we’re just like ghosts at the feast. We’re talking here today as though we could do something about this problem but, in fact, we can’t. On 23 June, we have the opportunity to take the decision that puts the levers of power back into the hands of Ministers like the First Minister here in Cardiff and indeed the Prime Minister at Westminster.