I want to focus most of my remarks on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, but can I begin by congratulating Charles Hendry on his report? Too often, reviews of this type lose themselves in fudges and faffing, coming to no clear conclusions and adding to the fog and to the delay, but not this one. This is the very model of what a decent review should do. It’s carefully considered, it’s delivered with due deliberation but without undue delay, and with conclusions and recommendations that are straight and to the point: the Swansea tidal lagoon should definitely and promptly be supported by the UK Government as a pathfinder—as the pathfinder—to examine the potential and the challenges of a wider roll-out of tidal lagoons. It is, in Charles’s words, ‘a no-regrets policy’ for the Government, or as I and many others have said in more colloquial terms, it’s a no-brainer. But let me say right at the outset: there is no case for overriding the environmental considerations, come what may. They must be worked through to a satisfactory resolution. We cannot treat lightly the issues highlighted by those, including myself, who rightly put the utmost importance on the special and often unique habitats and species, the ecology and the hydrology of the local area of the Severn and of the Bristol channel itself.

If there is to be, as Charles has pointed out, a wider national programme of tidal lagoon development, it makes absolute sense that it should be accompanied by a proper strategic spatial and evidence-based approach to planning and assessment, or in the Cabinet Secretary’s words, a marine plan. And a national policy approach, of course—it’s sensible, it’s desirable, it’s even essential to go forward in that wider roll-out. And, of course, we need to look at how we deal with the protections of the highest order in the habitats directives as well as the water framework directive, and whether derogations are necessary, desirable or even possible. Much more needs to be examined on that wider roll-out.

But we also look at the other aspects: the flood risks, the flood protections, the habitat change and the displacement, the loss of intertidal habitat and the impacts on valued migratory species, on water quality and fisheries issues, and hydrodynamic and morphodynamic changes to the physical environment, and so much more in the wider roll-out. For a wider programme and a wider roll-out, all of this has got to be considered, and I’m keen to play my part in scrutinising such a roll-out.

But for the Swansea lagoon, described in the Hendry review as the pathfinder, there are just three remaining locks. And I hope that with goodwill, as well as due diligence on all sides, these three locks can be unpicked simultaneously and satisfactorily, and soon. The first two are the marine licence and the development consent order, which are two separate processes in Wales, unlike England, but that can be done in tandem. So, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary for assurances that this will be the case, and we do not have to wait for sequential stages that will add to the delay. And the outstanding issue for the marine licence is that of the impact on fish, and the inability of the company, yet, to satisfy the NRW permitting service. So, after much work, we do understand from NRW in their briefing that—and I quote—‘a more detailed submission to the permitting service will be made by the applicant in due course, and to support the development of a submission, CEFAS and NRW’s technical experts have agreed to provide additional advice. This work is ongoing and once this work is concluded, a submission must then be made by TLSB, the lagoon, to the permitting service for the review.’ They go on: ‘A subsequent consultation must then take place to inform the technical assessments that the permitting service is legally required to undertake. Only once all the legislative requirements are satisfied can a decision on the marine licence be made.’ Meanwhile: ‘We also understand the development consent order has 42 requirements for the conditions of the permit, which will need to be discharged by the local planning authorities—LPAs—before construction works could commence. Of these, NRW is a statutory consultee on 15.’

Now, these matters have to be carried out assiduously and properly, but we can also do this with due diligence and without due delay. I strongly urge both Cabinet Secretaries to work together on this matter—and with their officials; bring them together, bring NRW together—and to encourage and cajole and demand that NRW and LPAs and all involved make the rapid resolution of these issues a top priority.

Assuming that the Crown Estate will want to see the pathfinder proceed, it leaves us with the third and final lock, the keys to which are held by the UK Government in the form of financial support through the contract for difference, or what is commonly called the strike price. A cross-party show of unified support here today, added to the wider support from the business community, the higher education community, the sustainable energy sector and others, including that letter of over 100 cross-party MPs today, may just oil the lock and allow the key to turn a little easier and a lot sooner.