Can I thank the Minister for his statement yesterday, and, again, for this statement today and the opportunity to ask questions and to clarify a few points in relation to the news from Tata of its possible 3,000 job losses and other aspects that the four points had highlighted? It is important that we recognise that the 3,000 job losses are across Europe, but if we consider a third of those perhaps to the UK, that's going to be one eighth of the workforce in the UK, that's 1,000 jobs across the UK, and most of the UK Tata plants are going to be in Wales, so it's a huge impact upon Welsh jobs and the Welsh workforce.

And let's be honest with ourselves: it's been four years since we saw the challenges coming through to Tata when Redcar was closed in 2015, and we've seen steel workers having rollercoaster rides in those four years—up and down—difficult times and then they'd be relieved, then more difficult times coming and more challenges. And this has taken a terrible toll on steel workers and their families, with the stress and worry about it. And the announcement that you've just indicated today, Minister, that it's unlikely to know where those job losses will fall and we won't know the implementation until 2021—another 18 months—is going to add more uncertainty for those families and to those steelworkers, as they'll go into work every day thinking to themselves that there might not be a job for them in 12 months' time. It's something that, really, Tata needs to address more quickly, rather than leaving it so late. I appreciate that they're doing their job, in the sense that they're going to take a detailed look at this, but it's leaving that uncertainty in people's minds for those months ahead of us, and we need to address that, importantly.

I also welcome you highlighting the supply-chain element, because, again, the supply-chain aspect of this is, 'What are they doing over the next 18 months? Where are they going to be putting their workforce and their emphasis? How are they going to look at investment and securing that aspect to ensure that they address the efficiency gains and optimisation that Tata are highlighting themselves?'

Another worrying part of that statement—if you look at it very carefully, it says an earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation drop of 90 per cent in this financial year. That's a drop of 90 per cent that they've forecast. It's a huge, huge drop in those figures, and therefore we've got to look very carefully at the sustainable future of steel making.

They also highlight dumping in their statement, and how that has impacted upon the global market, and, again, we must call upon the UK Government to do more to get the EU to put higher protections on, whilst we are still members of the EU. But also, if we're going to leave the EU, what is the defence mechanism that's going to be in place for the UK to protect from dumping of this steel from elsewhere, because of the trade war between China and America? That's what's causing some of those problems. To be blunt, we knew, last time, the UK did nothing to push the EU to actually put the tariffs on steel from China. It was other EU countries that did it, so I have no faith, at the moment, in the UK Government actually putting anything in force to stop that dumping happening. Will you, again, raise those issues with the UK Government to ensure that we can protect UK steel from being attacked by cheap imports from other nations?

Minister, the statement also highlights increasing high-end sales, and that means capital expenditure. Have you had discussions with Tata as to where they might want to put capital expenditure in place to actually get the high-end sales, get the products, like the cable galvanising line in Port Talbot or the Zodiac line in Newport, to ensure that we can have a product that sells in that high-end market? Because they've often told me, if they can get more of that, it increases their returns and profit margins as a consequence of that.

He mentioned Orb, and, again, the question comes, when the Orb announcement was made, they were talking about transferring those jobs to the plants in south Wales, particularly in Port Talbot: where does this fall within that, because, if they're talking about job losses within Port Talbot, and we've heard that this is about a third blue collar and about two thirds white collar, so there are blue-collar jobs going, where are those job losses going to be? If there's going to be availability for people from Orb going into the other plants, how does that fit together with this plan?

You also mentioned the Swansea bay city deal as part of your answer to Russell George, and, again, perhaps the Welsh Government can give a commitment to how it will work with the Swansea bay city deal, particularly the steel science project, to look at, perhaps, the carbon-neutral agenda that Tata are talking about as part of that deal, and we can actually show the continuing commitment to the future of the steel industry here in Wales through that project. Again, the Welsh Government's commitment to that would be very much welcome.

I also agree with you, very much so, that the memorandum of understanding with the trade unions must be honoured, must be kept to, because steelworkers gave up their pension contributions and rights and changed to a new scheme with that commitment given by Tata. They cannot walk away from that commitment. They must make sure that the non—so, the compulsory jobs are gone. It's 2026, if I remember right, the date that they would keep no compulsory redundancies to. They have to deliver that. They can't walk away, because steelworkers have given them everything. They've given them their pension contributions and changes, they've given them their commitment, they've given them productivity changes. They've even accepted job losses when necessary. It's time now Tata actually returned some of that to the workers and gave them protection, and honoured that commitment—