I was pleased to see today that there was a letter I think MPs at Westminster organised. Richard Graham, the MP for Gloucester, and 107 MPs signed that, and, I think most usefully, Jesse Norman, who’s the junior Minister responsible, has said there won’t be any foot dragging from the UK Government in responding to Charles Hendry’s report. Last summer, I was asked by Charles Hendry’s office whether I could arrange a meeting of AMs to discuss with him the work that he was doing. I was really struck by the number of people who came, the enthusiasm for his work, and then again when that report was published, just the welcome for how strong and unambiguous he was in his recommendation.

When I first thought some years ago about this project. it was, I think, an earlier stage, when it had been suggested that the cost of the energy would be £168 per MWh, and compared on the basis it was, which was a relatively short contract for difference, it appeared to be very expensive compared to other options, including nuclear and offshore wind. I’ve been convinced that it’s now been assessed on a fairer and more sensible basis over a longer time frame, and also lower long-term interest rates make the investment relatively more attractive. When you look at where it’s being funded from, to the extent that we have a levy control framework at a UK level—£9.8 billion equivalent by 2020 is the fixed envelope for that—it strikes me as sensible to spend more of that money on a diverse range of energy possibilities, some of which may work out and become very successful over the longer term. We’ve seen the very big decline in solar prices; we haven’t seen as large a decline in wind energy prices. I suspect that money could be better spent by at least funding an alternative technology option that may potentially deliver strong results over the longer term, and clearly has a significant option value in it given the uncertainties of all these things. Compared to nuclear and offshore wind, to the extent that it compares well now even on the projections in cost terms, I think it’s more attractive because of that greater variety and diversity for what’s clearly a non-polluting and reliable energy source.

Further, there’s just no doubt that this would be great for Wales. That levy control framework is on a UK basis, and I think that Simon Thomas spoke very rightly and I think generously drew attention to the fact that this would be Wales benefiting from the UK framework. I think to an extent this Assembly can come together and, I believe, with unanimity support this motion and this project, as well as the technical and option value descriptions I’ve given. Clearly, there would be an awful lot of money, whether from the UK taxpayer, or more generally from the UK electricity bill payer, that would be coming and being invested in Wales, and helping us at least potentially to develop this as an industry for the future. So, I’d very much welcome that.

Just to follow up on some of Lee Waters’s points earlier about Natural Resources Wales, I don’t think it’s fair for us to criticise NRW too strongly. They are doing what has been set out for them under legislation, and when we pass legislation that delegates authority to arm’s-length bodies, then we shouldn’t be surprised when they do what they’re asked under the statutes as we’ve set out. Welsh Ministers have delegated their powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to NRW, and it’s for NRW to take a licence decision when we deposit any substance or object in the sea or on or under the sea bed. It’s for them to determine, and we’ve set out ways in which that should happen—the need to protect the environment, the need to protect human health, and the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the seas. It’s important they consider the things they’ve been asked to.

I think it’s unfortunate we don’t have the call-in process in Wales that’s available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and also that it wasn’t possible to deem a licence as part of the planning DCA process. So, I would just ask, perhaps not immediately, but following a UK decision, and particularly if the report is approved, whether Welsh Ministers would give consideration to using the power I described earlier to Lee Waters to direct NRW, or perhaps to lay down a time frame in which they have to deal with some of these difficult issues about fish modelling, and actually come to a view in a way that wouldn’t delay the overall project. Then, if NRW did, for whatever reasons, or the narrow issues it might be looking at, if it weren’t to determine it favourably, then there would be the right of appeal to Welsh Ministers. I understand entirely why Welsh Ministers, in the terms of the motion and what they say to us in the Assembly today, will not want to say anything that could potentially lead to an adverse judicial review in future. But I’d like to add my own support to what I think is a very broad support in the Assembly for the Hendry review and for this as a future energy of great potential benefit to Wales.