The minister responded by emphasising the commitment to securing a stable future for the workers and the communities. He acknowledged the complexities involved but assured that the Government's approach aims to avoid redundancies and facilitate a sustainable operational restart.

The minister explained that after thorough due diligence, the Government concluded that the proposed financing lacked adequate protections for taxpayers and did not guarantee long-term stability for the local economy and community.

The Secretary of State thanked the shadow Minister for his words and addressed his concerns. He stated that the cost of funding the official receiver was essentially the wages of the staff, which would be paid. He defended the Government's policy changes, including the supercharger package, which would reduce electricity prices for steel producers. He also defended the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism as necessary for fair competition. He highlighted the opportunity presented by Speciality Steel UK to operate a successful business in the private sector, but noted that the legacy of neglect had created a substantial challenge for private sector entities. He emphasised the need for a secure and resilient steel industry and the Government's commitment to addressing the challenges faced by the industry.

The Secretary of State thanked the MP for her support and advocacy on behalf of her constituents. He stated that the work would look at capacities, potential for new investment, product lines, and customer demand. He highlighted the importance of homologation, the accreditations of the sites for speciality products, which are incredibly valuable. He committed to remain in close contact with her and to pass on good news if the process can be taken forward.

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I entirely endorse what she said about the centrality of steel to security and infrastructure, and, indeed, I echo her words. This is entirely pragmatic. I am seeking to resolve a series of long-running problems, which a great many of my Conservative predecessors—and there were a great many—ignored, considering them to be too difficult. That is the central lesson that I would learn: we have to be willing to confront these hard problems. We might think that we can pass them on to the next person, but that is not serving the country in the way that is required. Let me now deal with the hon. Lady’s specific questions. I expect this process to take between four and six months, but I want it to be resolved as quickly as possible. I think it important to point out that there are costs either way: there are costs involved in running the business in public ownership, and there would also be costs to the state from the remediation and regeneration, partly because of the legacy of public ownership but also because such big steel industrial sites come with so many issues to resolve if they are remediated that some of that would fall on the Exchequer. If this were a matter of public ownership, we would have to pay off the creditors, reach an accommodation with them, acquire the assets, and then inject some working capital over a period of between one and three years. I would expect the cost of that to be about £350 million, and I would expect something comparable were the option to be regeneration and remediation. The hon. Lady asked about existing budgets. We knew when we came to power that we needed to pay attention to the steel industry. There was a commitment in our manifesto for £2.5 billion, on top of the £500 million that was granted to Tata in Port Talbot under the previous Government. We have spent some of that, although the lion's share of the sum has gone to British Steel, but the support for Tata has continued. Some of the money has gone on the official receiver process here. We have that existing budget in which to commence this work. These are obviously significant assets, and I think that this is an entirely appropriate use of them. The hon. Lady also mentioned the relationship with Europe. She will know that when the European Union changed its own trade defence measures on steel, that had some adverse consequences for us. My call to Commissioner Šefčovič was one of my first in the job, for a number of reasons. We talked explicitly about this, and are seeking a resolution specifically on steel, which I believe would be in our interests and those of the European Union.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her support and engagement on behalf of her constituents. There is a co-dependency between the four sites in terms of how the business operates, but any long-term consideration, whether in the private or the public sector of the business, will have to include consideration of products, customers and markets if the business is to be run profitably. That will be central to the assessment that we can now make. However, I can give the hon. Member the reassurance that every part of this business clearly has worth—which is why they have been grouped in this way, historically and in a contemporary sense—and, of course, we are seeking the best solution for the workers in all four of the plants.

I am always grateful for the support of the Father of the House, who has a long-standing interest in all industrial matters. However, I consider myself more obsessed with industrial energy prices than, frankly, any other Member of this House. I am great company when this subject comes up. On electric arc furnaces—which are the technology in use here and will be, I hope, in Scunthorpe at some point—we already have in place a set of policies that do not just put us on a par with some of our rivals, but actually give us a competitive position. That is the supercharger scheme for the most energy-intensive electricity users. The Father of the House will know that we have also launched, as part of the industrial strategy, the British industrial competitiveness scheme which is about to come into force. In effect, it is a scheme for manufacturers, and again it significantly moves the dial on their competitiveness. I recognise this issue, but we have done more than previous Governments, and we will continue to do more on it. I agree entirely with the Father of the House’s case, but I think we must recognise the very substantial work that has already gone on. I considered BICS to be the centrepiece of the industrial strategy when we launched it, because it moves the dial so significantly on our competitiveness not just for steel, but across a range of manufacturing sectors.

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I have been discussing steel matters in this House for many years. I am aware of the specific challenges at Llanwern. I believe it is a very sound business, and our trade defence measures will directly benefit it. Again, we have to strike a balance. People would sometimes like us to go further in one direction than the other, but this is all part of the support we have given the steel industry. I believe that the downstream use she mentioned will be central to the future of steel production in Wales.

The right hon. Member will understand that I will not comment on matters pertaining to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but stick to the considerable number of issues in the domain of BIST. The cost for the official receiver is £11 million a month, and we first have to see whether there is an opportunity to save the business. That may require public acquisition, and if we put in public money, I would want a return for that public money.

The process to date has in effect been working with potential private sector bidders on the viability of their plans. That task is entirely different from what we can do now, which is essentially to assess whether there is a viable future for this business under public acquisition. If there is, the opportunity would present itself to return to steel production.

I welcome the support from the hon. Gentleman for the decisive action we are taking. On his point about potentially combining British Steel and, if it were acquired in the public interest, Speciality Steel UK, I urge caution in that regard. The job required at Scunthorpe and Teesside for British Steel is in itself a significant industrial transformation.

I thank my hon. Friend for her support and for her question. My ideal is that I want steelworkers making steel. I do not think that is complicated, but it has been too complicated to date. All we are seeking is a chance for those proud people to return to the jobs that they so love and which have defined their communities for so many years.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We will rekindle that relationship. We have just appointed a chair of British Steel. I am eager to crack on with the work that is required on a transformational plan for Scunthorpe. As soon as I have substantive information to share, I am always happy to come to the House to talk about steel.

The quality of the downstream products we create in the UK, particularly in Wales, is well known, but there are gaps in the market. The role of our trade defence measures is to provide a level playing field for domestic production. The sector is fundamentally important to the UK.

I acknowledge the issues that the hon. Lady raises. Our trade defence measures are a necessary response to global over-production. If the hon. Lady believes that there is inconsistency with the products that are needed in her constituency, we are happy to meet her to take the matter forward. There is sometimes misalignment between certain product codes and trade defence measures.

Grateful for the MP's advocacy, confirms that Dalzell is a separate legal entity from Speciality Steel and owned by the Gupta Family Group. Acknowledges the challenges in acquiring the site due to the need to establish liability and public money requirements but commits to remaining engaged.

Reassures that Wales had the lion's share of the Government's funding due to the transformation programme at Port Talbot and emphasises the success of the transformation project, noting the significant public and private capital investment.

Acknowledges that the priority should be to resolve issues and get steelworkers back to work, avoiding comments that detract from that goal.

Agrees that every effort must be made to ensure Northern Ireland is not economically cut off by steel import arrangements, reiterates the focus on resolving issues and rekindling the relationship between the plants and Northern Ireland’s manufacturing, construction, and engineering industries.