Sorry, I was just about to come to that. [Laughter.] And I agree, and I was just about to use it as a good example of where this national energy company could help. Because how would the Welsh Government do that? Does it just give £200 million to a private company? Please, I don't think so. If you're going to give Welsh taxpayers' money to a company, which I wouldn't oppose, but let's do it together, co-financing—. I think £200 million is a serious offer, but it's the starting offer—maybe more is required—but in which case you'd want to take some of the profits, you'd want to be part of the technology, you'd want to be part of the profits that might come from spinning off the technology for future tidal lagoons. You need a body to do that, don't you? Well, what body do you then have to do it? When you were faced with Wales and borders franchise arrangement, you set up Transport for Wales, a non-dividend body to do that work on behalf of the Welsh Government. Surely this is an example of why we do need a national energy company to do precisely this.

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I supported and welcomed, when the initial announcement was made, a co-investment kind of model—£200 million wasn't mentioned there. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for Finance knew how much money was in the pot, but it wasn't mentioned. Now we have a figure. I think the figure is a serious opening offer. If it's going to be upped at all, then we need to take stakes in the company, stakes in the technology, stakes in the future development.

But let's put one thing to bed—the tidal lagoon is not an outrageously expensive proposal in this context. The Secretary of State for Wales has made some dreadful mistakes over the last few years, including the reneging on promises of investment for electrification for Swansea, for example. His mathematics are all to pot, I have to say. To say the tidal lagoon is asking twice as much as nuclear—no way. The tidal lagoon project specifically asked for a 90-year contract at £89.90 per MWh. It sounds a lot, but in 90 years' time, that's not a lot of money at all. That compares to Hinkley Point, which is £92.50 per MWh. The tidal lagoon would have installed capacity of 320 MW, providing power to over 150,000 homes, and as everyone knows, it's designed as a pathfinder project. That is more expensive, because the technology itself is not new, but it's the application of the technology that's new. It's not innovative to have a turbine in water, but it is innovative to put it in a wall that goes around a big tidal range. That's innovative. So, the application is innovative, not the technology. You compare something like a tidal lagoon with a nuclear power station—both have high capital costs, both of them, but over a 100-year period, which is in effect the tidal lagoon period, you get decreasing costs of production, whereas our experience with nuclear is that those costs are rarely maintained at that level. That's why they want 35-year contracts for those costs. 

So, the lagoon would provide energy security, and as the Hendry review, which was the independent review that the Government set up to look into this, said very clearly, both nuclear and tidal lagoons are UK sources of generation, but nuclear relies on imported uranium, and as other technologies move on, and as China might take up more uranium, the price of imported uranium might well rise. What the tidal lagoon gives us is Welsh generation using our own natural resources. I think that in itself is something that we support. Not only do we support it, the public support it—76 per cent supported wave and tidal energy, and 38 per cent, in that poll done itself by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, supported nuclear. 

I don't want to set up one against the other, and that's the dangerous thing that the Secretary of State is likely to do here, and say, 'Well, on Monday we gave you Wylfa, and on Friday we won't give you the tidal lagoon.' If we're going to have a proper energy mix, then we need all sources to be applied and we need in particular to see the tidal lagoon to be given the assistance of the Westminster Government. I can't put it any better than to conclude by quoting what Hendry himself said around the tidal lagoon:

'To put this in context, the cost of a pathfinder project...is expected to average around 30 pence per household per annum during the first thirty years. This seems to me an extremely modest amount to pay for a new technology which delivers those benefits and which has clear potential to start a significant new industry. Moving ahead with a pathfinder lagoon is, I believe, a no-regrets policy.'

I believe the lagoon should be supported on that basis. I believe a national energy company could be the vehicle for the Welsh Government to invest and be part of that significant new industry. We here will either take a decision this week to invest in the tidal lagoon and be part of that, or we will find ourselves supplicants once again, when, in 10 years' time perhaps, a Chinese company comes in and says, 'I love your tidal range, let's have a tidal lagoon.'