Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I can respond very briefly to the debate and first of all just put on record that, as I've mentioned the tidal lagoon, I am a community shareholder in the tidal lagoon, like many other people have been. It's not a declarable interest, I have to say; it's not that big. But it does show that many hundreds of people in the area have put their own money where the Westminster Government is not prepared to go. We believe in Wales. We believe in our natural resources. We believe this can work. We believe this technology will be there for hundreds of years to come, and we should utilise it. I very much hope that the Westminster Government ultimately will, yes, respond to the offer from this Government, and also respond to the widespread support for the tidal lagoon in Wales.

Can I thank everyone who took part in the debate, particularly those who supported me? [Laughter.] But, also, I'd just emphasise how important I think Bethan and Siân's examples of community investment and community ideas are—and the Aberdeen example is an excellent way of showing how this could be knitted together.

Both Llyr and Mick Antoniw have talked about the fact that this is, in effect, big business. There's a lot of money in energy, and that profit is going elsewhere. It's not coming to me. [Laughter.] That profit at the moment, ironically, is often taken by other Governments who have invested in Wales, and not our own communities. It's the same for Arriva trains and other things as well, of course. So, we do need a better approach to this, and that's why I can't agree with David Melding's position. I understand where he comes from, but his Conservative Government has been nationalising rail left, right and centre—or at least east, west and middle—and the ideology has to crumble away when you're faced with the reality.

What we have in energy—let's just step away from slightly ideological positions here—is that you need some kind of private rigour there to ensure that efficiency is driven through the process, but if you haven't got that, then you have to have something that recognises the market has failed when you've got high energy prices in an energy-rich country. So, you have to have intervention.

If I can conclude by turning to the Cabinet—. Not the Cabinet Secretary, sorry; the Minister, who's speaking for the Cabinet Secretary. Her intervention—I agree with a lot of what she said, but she did say that the consultation refused this idea. Well, yes, 38 out of 72 people said 'no' to this idea. That's a Brexit kind of result, really. But very importantly, what did the consultation also say was missing? What it said was missing is: collective market failures, e.g. running schemes to tackle fuel poverty, encourage renewable generation, close the gaps between local production and local consumption—the Ynni Ogwen model—continue to prioritise demand reduction, including through better energy efficiency and behaviour change, and ensure the energy system and transition works for the citizens of Wales and aligns with the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Some of these objectives could be advanced by an all-Wales energy services company, but maybe not by an energy supply company. In light of the fact of what the Minister said, are these things actually being done, and doesn't she actually think we do need some national strategy to achieve this?