You are here every Tuesday. We're all here every Tuesday. But we're also making the more general point that you're here, and you spoke up in favour of the Conservative Prime Minister's actions in Syria, and we would expect you to be here to tell us why you did that. And I think a lot of your Labour Members would expect you to tell us why you did that as well.

It's not that we're the people who hold you to account about this. We are here on behalf of the people of Wales, and when the UK Government commits finances, as Leanne Wood put out at the start of this debate, commits our troops and men and women in the armed forces, from Wales potentially, and risks homeland security by taking offensive action abroad, which is a point that Jeremy Corbyn has made time and time again, then surely that affects us here in Wales, and we're right to debate that. We don't decide these things, but we're right to debate them because we send a message back to our constituents who, as has been raised by several Members—Bethan Sayed and Mick Antoniw as well, I think, made this point—several constituents have contacted us to say, 'Where's your moral fibre? Where do you stand on these issues?' You may not always please constituents when you're an Assembly Member dealing with Westminster issues, but they want to hear from you. So, from this Chamber we send back those messages, and we send back either our support or not as the case may be.

I think that two themes have emerged from this debate. First of all, there's the issue of whether Parliament should have been recalled to decide this, and the convention that Robin Cook so powerfully—and I was with Julie Morgan, as was Adam Price as well, in Westminster when he made his resignation speech, and when he made that famous convention. But as Mick Antoniw has set out, has reminded us, really, conventions are very strange things in the British constitution. They can be broken as well as set, and what we are concerned about here is that the Cook convention has been broken by this decision to take offensive action—not defensive action, but offensive action—in a foreign country as part of an alliance without recourse to Parliament. When you see conventions broken like that, what price the Sewel convention? What price our debates around frameworks and Brexit and everything that emerges from that, when we see that the Westminster Government acts in a particular way? So, there's that issue that I think has been very strongly put forward.

Then there's the action itself. I'd like to thank particularly Mike Hedges and Julie Morgan for their contributions on this. It crystallises in a simple question: do we today feel that the civilians in Syria are better protected, better looked after, have a safer future following this strike? [Interruption.] An intervention from a sedentary position says possibly they are. I don't accept that, but it's an argument to make. But I think the majority view in here, I sense, would be that we don't really accept that. So we need to ask: what has this offensive action been taken for? Well, it's really been taken for geopolitical reasons. It's been taken to support Trump, to look like that we are in association with Trump. When that dead hand of Trump went onto Theresa May's hand and he led her down the garden path—that's where it started, this thought that we have to associate ourselves with a very erratic American foreign policy. Now, whatever you thought of the neo-cons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I didn't think much of them—. [Interruption.] In a second, if I may. I didn't think much of them. It was clear what that foreign policy was. The difficulty was, of course, they didn't have any policy for what happened to the countries after military intervention, but it was clear what the path of military intervention was. I don't think we see that from President Trump and, therefore, I don't think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be associating herself with such an erratic foreign policy. I'll give way to David Melding.