The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Julie James, and amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

Therefore, we now move to item 5, which is a debate on no named day motion 6753: the Secretary of State for Wales. I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Motion NNDM6753 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. No longer has confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales to deliver major infrastructure projects, following the decision of the Westminster government not to support the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.

2. Has no confidence in the post of the Secretary of State for Wales and believes it should be abolished and replaced with a properly constituted UK council of Ministers with shared and equal decision-making powers.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I, first of all, thank the Assembly for allowing us to debate this no named day motion now? I think, in light of the events over the last week and the decision making of the Westminster Government, it is appropriate that we debate this motion. I understand not everyone will support the content of the motion, and there are amendments before us, but I think it is vital that we allow ourselves to debate the motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State.

When I tabled the motion, of course, I didn't think we'd be having two no confidence motions on the same day as regards the Conservative Party, but it seems that that is what has transpired. But we're here to judge one man's responsibility, and one man's responsibility to deliver on manifesto commitments, and that's what I want to judge the Secretary of State on—a commitment in 2015 to do two major pieces of infrastructure investment in Wales, worth over £2 billion of investment: to electrify the railway between Swansea and Cardiff and to support the tidal lagoon. More than that, there was a commitment in the manifesto that the Secretary of State for Wales stood on and was elected on to finish the job on electrification and to support the tidal lagoon.

Since that 2015 manifesto, yes, circumstances have changed, many of them created by the Conservative Government itself, of course, in calling the referendum on leaving the European Union, but neither of those major investments have been made, calling into question not only the good words of the Secretary of State himself but, I think, politics more widely—all of us who stand for election on manifestos. I've seen some of the response this week from my constituents around this, who now feel that they are not being listened to and that manifesto commitments and promises can be broken willy-nilly, not by oppositions, not by small parties, not by others, but by parties who have been in Government for several years.

That failure to deliver really has left us in a very invidious position in this Assembly, because we wanted these projects to deliver for us, the Welsh Government wanted to work with these projects, the Welsh Government was prepared to co-invest in these projects, and the Welsh Government had plans in place to benefit Wales as a whole when these projects went ahead, both in terms of rail electrification and the tidal lagoon. As a result of a decision made by the Westminster Government for which, yes, to a certain extent, in terms of this debate today, the Secretary of State for Wales is the figurehead—he may not have personally taken some of these decisions, in the sense that I understand it was actually the Prime Minister who decided to cancel rail electrification to Swansea—but he is our most direct voice in Westminster. He is supposedly Wales's voice in the Cabinet, the advocate for Wales in the Cabinet, and the person for whom this should be a matter of personal commitment and personal responsibility to deliver.

If there are two commitments in your manifesto for election for which you are then the Cabinet Secretary responsible, and you don't deliver on them, then do you carry on? Do you stand down? Do you say, 'I'm sorry, I failed to get it through'? Do you resign as a sign that you are unhappy with your own Government's performance? We have had resignations this week from members of the Government, for lesser reasons than this, actually—on principle to vote against a planning decision on Heathrow, not even as far advanced as rail electrification and the tidal lagoon. The fact that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to act in the spirit of what Wales wanted, and show his dissatisfaction with the decision making of his own Government—which, to be fair, some Members opposite have done over the last day or so—I think means that we should move a motion of no confidence in him here today.

Now, of course we are not responsible for the Secretary of State for Wales, he is not answerable to us, and he doesn't even come to the Assembly anymore to give his annual speech. [Interruption.] Just in a second, of course. We rightly got rid of that rather anachronistic approach, but he is our single voice in Westminster, and we are the voice of the people of Wales, so it is completely appropriate politically—maybe not constitutionally, but politically I think it's completely appropriate—that we debate the motion and pass it here today.

I was going to say that he also refuses to come to committees to give evidence.

He does indeed, and most recently to the committee on which Mike Hedges serves with myself, the Finance Committee.

I am not going to list the failures of one individual here. There are many, and I could list—[Interruption.] I haven't got the time in the next hour. I'm concentrating on the two big commitments that he failed to deliver, which were in the manifesto and which he personally should take responsibility for. The others, which may come out in emerging debate, are things, I think, for a debate. They don't bring us to a situation where we would want to pass a motion or make a motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State, but these two decisions do.

Let's just look in particular at the Swansea bay tidal lagoon decision, the most recent one. In rejecting this, we haven't just rejected one lagoon project. What's been rejected is the entire proposition of tidal range technology. It's been rejected on the basis of their own commissioned independent report by a previous energy Minister on the potential for tidal range energy, which wasn't just about the Swansea lagoon—though it came to a particular conclusion on the Swansea lagoon—but was in fact a report on the whole tidal range energy around the British isles. In the words of the chief executive of Tidal Lagoon Power, the decision to ditch the lagoon is a

'vote of no interest in Wales, no confidence in British manufacturing, and no care for the planet'.

I think, given that, no confidence in the Secretary of State is the least response that this Assembly can make. Our faces were actually rubbed into the dirt by the way this announcement was made, and the wounds were rubbed in with salt. On the day that the tidal lagoon was scrapped, a £14 billion extra runway at Heathrow was approved, and on the day the tidal lagoon was scrapped, the Secretary of State saw fit to use his own social media outlet, the Twitter account of the Wales Office, to tweet a series of infantile memes regarding the pathetic job creation of the tidal lagoon, and how it wouldn't do this and it wouldn't do that, on the basis of sums and figures that most people think don't add up. They were in complete contradiction; for example, a tweet from the Secretary of State says it would only have created 28 long-term jobs, and there's a commitment in the 2015 manifesto that says:

'This project will create thousands of jobs and attract millions of pounds worth of investment into Wales.'

[Interruption.]—I'll leave that to one side. Three years apart—which is the lie? Which is the lie—the tweet yesterday from the Secretary of State or the commitment in a manifesto signed up to by not just one individual, but the whole of the Conservative Party?

Charles Hendry has picked up on this and made a very important point in his own response to this decision. He said:

'just as gas plants and wind farms only create a small number of long-term jobs. The issue here was can we start a new global industry from the UK? Swansea would just be the start.'

Swansea would just be the start. What the Secretary for State has robbed us of is not one project, but the start of a whole new technology, the start of a new beginning for Swansea and for Wales, the start of a new export market, the start of a new manufacturing base, the start of new hope for Tata Steel, the start of new hope for skills and training in south Wales. That's what he's robbed us of, and that's why we should not give any indication to him that we have any confidence in his decision making going forward.

The lagoon has huge public support—76 per cent of the British public support wave and tidal energy, compared, as it happens, to only 38 per cent who support nuclear energy. Yet nuclear doesn't only just get the subsidy contract for difference—the lagoon was asking for the same as Hinkley, of course—but it also gets co-investment from the UK Government, something that the Welsh Government, to be fair, had offered the lagoon, and was rejected by the UK Government. And, of course, tidal lagoons do have a very different and longer operational life and cost less in the long term, as Hendry concluded in his independent report. Put in this context, the cost of a pathfinder project, such as Swansea bay, financed thought the contract for difference approach, which is 30p a year on every bill, is expected to average 30p per household, as I just said. This seems to me to be an extremely modest amount to pay for a new technology that delivers those benefits and which has a clear potential to start a significant new industry. Moving ahead with a pathfinder lagoon is, I believe, a 'no regrets' policy.

If we just accept this decision from Westminster, and from the Secretary for State in particular, if we don't make the Secretary for State regret his decision, then this 'no regrets' policy will become disastrous decision making. We must assert our rights here to send a clear message to Westminster. They sent us a very clear message on Tuesday. They said, 'Go away, forget about investment, forget about your future, forget about this new start. Go away and be quiet.' We must not be quiet in the face of such strong messages from Westminster and we must send back an equally strong message to the Secretary for State, because sometimes you do have to make politics personal, and sometimes you have to realise that those who are trying to be a bridge to realise Welsh ambitions have actually slammed the door on those Welsh ambitions. Only by stating that we have no confidence in him can we reject his mission of supplication and crumbs from the UK table and assert our democratic right to our own resources and our own decisions. 

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move formally amendment 1.

Amendment 1—Julie James

Delete all after National Assembly for Wales and replace with:

1. Regrets the UK Government’s failure to invest in major infrastructure projects in Wales, including the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon and electrification of the mainline between Cardiff and Swansea.

2. Regrets the Secretary of State for Wales’ failure to stand up for Wales and to support the need for greater UK Government investment in major infrastructure projects in Wales.

3. Believes:

a) there must be deeper and more sustained co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved governments;

b) the UK’s inter-governmental machinery must be reformed with a new UK council of Ministers, served by an independent secretariat, to strengthen decision making and collaboration.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Diolch. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 2 tabled in his name. Paul Davies.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the significant achievements of the Secretary of State for Wales including:

a) the agreement with the Welsh Government of a historic fiscal framework;

b) the abolition of the Severn bridge tolls;

c) significant investment in city and regional growth deals across Wales; and

d) the recent announcement of advanced negotiations to develop and construct a new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd.

2. Notes the inability of the Welsh Government to deliver progress on major infrastructure projects across Wales, following its rejection of the Circuit of Wales and its continued failure to deliver improvements to the M4, A40 and A55.

3. Believes the post and office of the Secretary of State for Wales is vital in representing Wales's interests at a UK Government level.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the amendment tabled in my name.

I'm disappointed that this motion has been tabled today by Plaid Cymru, and I'm sad that they are playing party politics with this particular issue. It won't surprise Members that I'll be focusing my contribution on some of the positive contributions that the Secretary of State for Wales has made for Wales. Of course, that's not to say that Members on this side of the Chamber aren't extremely disappointed with the recent announcement about the tidal lagoon, and my colleagues have made it crystal clear that we share the disappointment and the frustration echoed by other Members in this Chamber. Indeed, as a Member who represents an area where tidal energy developments are making significant progress, I recognise the potential value of the tidal lagoon. However, I appreciate that Government Ministers have a duty to ensure that the figures stack up and deliver value for money for the taxpayer, and it's clear that they felt unable to do that with this project. It's my view that we now need to look at a revised model that makes the project more cost-effective and more attractive to private sector investment. 

However, today's debate isn't tabled to discuss that or the implications of the tidal lagoon for Wales, but rather to discuss the post of the Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, it's only appropriate that we take the opportunity to be a little bit more objective, and at the very least recognise some of the positive outcomes delivered by the current Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I will in a moment. For example—and I will give you some examples—we know that the Secretary of State played a key role in delivering the fiscal framework with the Welsh Government, a framework that has been universally welcomed in this Chamber. The fiscal framework provides a fair, long-term funding arrangement for Wales, taking account of the new tax powers that have been devolved this year, and very much paves the way for the devolution of Welsh rates of income tax in 2019. 

The Secretary of State has also made it clear that Wales will see an end to tolls on the Severn crossing at the end of the year, and that's also a very welcome development. This announcement will benefit tens of millions of drivers each year, reduce the cost of doing business between Wales and England, and deliver a £100 million boost to the Welsh economy. The removal of that financial barrier sends a clear statement that Wales is open for business and is a symbolic statement that the UK Government and the current Secretary of State are breaking down barriers and supporting the Welsh economy, not putting up barriers. I give way to the Member for Anglesey.

Thank you for giving way. You talk about what the post of Secretary of State for Wales is. It's quite clear, is it not, that Alun Cairns is Westminster's man in Wales, not Wales's man in Westminster? It is absolutely clear, is it not, that Alun Cairns is reinventing the role of Welsh Secretary as governor-general for Wales? I oppose that in principle, I oppose that as a Welshman, and when it's clear that that governor-general is working against Wales's interest, isn't it incumbent on all of us to vote no confidence in him?

It's absolute rubbish. I've just given you a list of what this Secretary of State for Wales has actually delivered for Wales.

Our amendment also highlights the key work being done on the city and regional growth deals across Wales and the substantial investment that's been received in different parts of Wales. Growth deals for the Cardiff and Swansea regions have been agreed, with plans being drawn up in north Wales—all supported by significant financial backing from the UK Government. The deals provide local people with the opportunities to tackle the challenges to economic growth in the area through developing new, high-value businesses and supporting existing businesses to innovate and develop new products and services, and the Assembly should support those deals and work with local authorities to maximise their potential. For example, I understand that the Swansea bay city region deal will deliver a permanent uplift in its GVA and will generate around 10,000 new jobs over the next 15 years.

The Secretary of State has also worked hard in relation to the development and construction of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd, which will create thousands of jobs in north Wales during construction and deliver the biggest investment in north Wales for a generation. Indeed, Horizon anticipate it will create up to 9,000 jobs at the peak of construction, and with two reactors on site, the plant will also support close to 1,000 jobs during operation. Therefore, it's crucial to recognise that, far from the very bleak picture painted by some in this Chamber, there has been some very good outcomes for Wales delivered by the current Secretary of State for Wales. 

Of course, on this side of the Chamber, we believe that the post and office of the Secretary of State for Wales is vital in representing Wales's interests at a UK Government level. Indeed, as the UK moves closer to leaving the European Union, it's even more important that Wales's voice is heard around the Cabinet table and that the interests of the people of Wales are represented at all Cabinet meetings. 

Therefore, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, there are some very welcome outcomes that have been secured by the current Secretary of State for Wales and it's important that Members are objective when considering policy announcements. Therefore, I encourage the Members to support our amendments, see past party politics, and have a real debate about the delivery of infrastructure projects across Wales.

I'm pleased to take part in this important debate. Yesterday, I mentioned in the statement on the tidal lagoon the unbridled fury and anger in Swansea, and a day later that unbridled fury remains unbridled, I have to say, and that's the reason for this debate this afternoon.

Cohorts of engineering graduates in Swansea, dozens of local businesses and small contractors have been hanging on for years for a positive decision on quality high-paid jobs, thousands of them, as in the Conservative manifesto. There were high hopes for this one big innovative enterprise, and there is no way we can belittle the sense of devastation that Swansea and the community I live in feel this week—absolute betrayal and devastation. They are expecting a forceful reply from the National Assembly for Wales. Granted, our hands are largely tied constitutionally. This is the extent of our forceful reply to what has been a terrible, devastating piece of news. Hundreds of people have been in contact with all of us, not just me. There is fury out there—fury, absolute fury—and it's not in any way politically game playing anything at all.

Somebody has to be held to account for this. The Secretary of State for Wales is meant to be fighting our corner. There is precious little evidence of that fight over the months, I'm afraid—precious little. We know the figures. The same strike prices at Hinkley Point. Yes, there would be 30p in addition to electricity bills as a result of the tidal lagoon coming on—30p as opposed to £15 additional due to nuclear industry. But more than that, it's the absolute laying waste of an innovative world-beating industry that would be in Wales—in Swansea to start off with, the pathfinder project, but also Cardiff, Newport, Colwyn Bay. That's the sense of devastation we feel at this devastating decision. [Interruption.] It is betrayal and it is huge, and it has gone, absolutely. That's why we're having this debate. Somebody has to be held responsible, and I have no confidence, we have no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales. Darren—you can't hear, obviously.  

You mentioned flood protection and, quite rightly, some Members have been pointing out that I've been supporting projects in north Wales because of the flood protection benefits. The UK Government was quite clear that the dismissal of this particular proposal was a dismissal of this particular proposal. It was not, actually, an anti-tidal energy—full stop, no more tidal energy here in Wales—decision. And in fact, if you spoke to the developers of the potential projects in north Wales, which I have, they will tell you that their project is designed with different technology that can reduce the strike price significantly to make it much more affordable. So, I think that there are clearly different technologies out there and different schemes, which should, quite rightly, be weighed up on their own merits.   

Thank you for that—possibly one of the longest interventions on record. And if UK Government had spoken to the tidal lagoon company in Swansea, they would have found a similar argument, but there was no communication for two years, the chief executive and the chair tell me. So, what are they supposed to do? [Interruption.] Well, absolutely. You cannot defend it. That's why I'm asking you to vote for no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales.

And obviously, this betrayal is on top of other betrayals. I'm running out of time now, but I'll just concentrate on the non-electrification of the main railroad to, again, Swansea. There's a common denominator here—Swansea. What have we done? What have we done? So, yes, absolutely—two major manifesto promises not happening. We have absolutely no confidence at all in the current Secretary of State. 

Just to finish on the second point of our no confidence motion, we have no confidence in the post of Secretary of State of Wales either. We are in a new climate now post Brexit. We should be for Governments working equally together with a properly constituted UK council of Ministers, with shared and equal decision-making powers. That's the way forward. We don't need some handbag carrier between Cardiff and London any more. It's a colonial vestige—support the motion.

I have to say I'm very disappointed by one thing in particular, in that I think it was possible to have had a motion today that the whole Assembly could have agreed on, because we are genuinely disappointed by the outcome on the tidal lagoon and I do hope it will be possible for us to revisit things as soon as possible into the medium term. It is incumbent on those who have proposed the scheme to return and look at the figures, because a lot of the detail will now, inevitably, come out, and will be worthy of very intense examination, and that's what we will do on this side of the Assembly.

Can I just speak first of all of the clear overreach that was heavily hinted at, in fairness, in Simon's speech to propose the motion? But we do need to reflect on having respect for the spheres of Government—that's at the heart of a devolved or federal system. What would Plaid Cymru do if Westminster sought to pass a vote of no confidence in the First Minister? I have to say directly—and you'll not be surprised—that I feel this is silly politics. After all, Plaid are ably represented at Westminster—I'll finish this point—and they should have confidence in their colleagues in Westminster to pursue these matters there, where the Secretary of State is, of course, accountable. Now I'll give way.

I'm sure my colleagues are more than capable of doing that in Westminster, but does he not realise that his own Prime Minister consistently uses the Welsh NHS to attack Jeremy Corbyn?

Well, you know, that's the cut and thrust of politics—

Exactly. Exactly.

You've made the point for us. You've made the point for us.

Well, let me finish my point, thank you, Leanne. Politics needs comparisons. At the heart of devolved Government is the theory that you look at different jurisdictions, and you learn from them. That is definitely legitimate. But what you don't do in the Westminster model—indeed, in any democratic system of government—is get one legislature to vote 'no confidence' in a Minister who's not answerable to that legislature. It's constitutional nonsense, as you well know.

Let me move on. Another reason I'm very disappointed in this motion is that Alun Cairns has the unique insight that comes from being a former and long-serving Assembly Member. We greatly value that on this side of the Assembly, and I suspect, behind the scenes, that the Welsh Government do as well, and that's something to be greatly valued. He does have a very proud record of achievement in office, and he's a tireless champion for Wales, as has been outlined. I could go through all the achievements, but they were ably listed by my colleague.

Mick Antoniw rose—

I'm just going to make this one point.

Could I just add this, in a spirit of consensus? The way the UK Government and the Welsh Government co-operate in economic matters, I think, is worthy. And, since 2010, we've seen small and medium-sized enterprises grow by over 18,000 in Wales, and I don't think you can say that's UK Government exclusively, or Welsh Government—it is a partnership. Since 2010, we've seen 117,000 more people in work in Wales and 57,000 fewer unemployed. Again, these are joint achievements, and they are worthy ones. I will give way now, Mick.

Isn't part of the problem that you made very specific promises in your manifesto, they were put out publicly with the specific view of getting people to vote for you, and to win certain constituencies, and so on? Now, I have no problem with that, because that's part of politics. But, doesn't it actually destroy the whole purpose of a manifesto, the credibility of our political system? I mean, what is it—is it the case that when you put those specific promises to the people, in your manifesto, were they just ill-thought-out, were they just opportunist, or was it the case that you just never had any intention whatsoever of delivering on them?

You're quite right that any Government is accountable to the electorate on its platform in a manifesto. I don't think there is any Government that achieves everything it sets out to do, and obviously if you fall below a certain line you can expect a withering response from the electorate. But we are proud of what we are achieving, and we will defend it, and I'm sure the people of Wales, and the UK, will give us fair judgment and see the full range of our successes.

Can I just talk about the post of Secretary of State for Wales, because currently we're having a review of inter-governmental relations? I congratulate the Welsh Government for ensuring that, as part of the arrangements as we exit the EU, we review how we develop shared governance in the UK. It's an essential task—I've said this repeatedly—but we certainly need the Secretary of State's position, at least until more formal shared mechanisms of governance are established and seen to operate. It would be foolish to end the office of Secretary of State until that new constitutional outlook has been achieved.

And I say this directly to Plaid: you would be better advised to get your SNP cousins to back the development of more federal mechanisms to shape inter-governmental relations in the UK, because the truth is, at the moment, the SNP are more keen to rely on bilateral discussions, because they either win them or they condemn the UK Government outright if they don't get their way, even if they don't compromise at all, and they're not interested in the fundamental task that we are interested in, which is to strengthen the UK constitution. I do hope the Labour Members reflect on that point mostly.

As I expressed yesterday, I'm truly devastated by the short-sighted decision of Theresa May's Government to abandon the tidal lagoon. There is total devastation also in my region among the people who are certainly voicing their opinions, and rightly so, too. Yet again, the Westminster Government have shown their utter contempt for my region, reneging on the promise to deliver electrification to Swansea and now scuppering Swansea's chance to lead the world in innovative renewable energy.

But, I accept, the Secretary of State is a lone voice: one Minister out of 118; one voice out of 21 around the Cabinet table. So, I lay the blame for this terrible decision firmly at the door of Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark. The Secretary of State for Wales is a messenger, after all, and in this instance cannot take all the blame for this decision. However, I really feel that Alun Cairns needs to be much stronger in standing up for Wales, standing up for my region.

Following this debate, I want the Secretary of State to be less of a yes-man and do the right thing for my region, for Wales and for the people. So, while I have much sympathy with the Welsh Conservatives' amendment, I do feel that Wales has been let down by the UK Government and we need to ensure greater collaboration between the UK and Welsh Government. The current arrangements don't seem to be working and I will, therefore, be supporting the Welsh Government's amendment. 

So, the tidal lagoon decision was the latest in a long line of poor decisions by the UK Government. Wales needs both Governments working together if it is to prosper. Thank you. 

Railways not electrified, bridges renamed in the name of the colonial prince, the tidal lagoon scrapped: that is what is being delivered by the Secretary of State for Wales. He is Westminster's voice in Wales and not Wales's voice in Westminster. Manifesto promise after manifesto promise has been broken. Announcement after announcement has been reneged upon. And, of course, yes, votes were won on the back of those promises. 

Five billion pounds-worth of taxpayers' money for nuclear, but a fifth of that can't be found for the tidal lagoon; £3.5 billion to fix up the Palace of Westminster, but a third of that can't be found to build the tidal lagoon; a £1 billion bung to the DUP, but the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is too expensive. Monday encapsulated Westminster's disdain for Wales perfectly. On the very day that they approved a £14 billion runway in London, they scrapped the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. It's almost as if they are trying to rub their failure to invest in Wales in our faces. 

Yesterday, the First Minister, laughably, accused us of letting the Tories, and Wales's representative in the Westminster Government, off the hook. Labour will, today, effectively show their support for the Secretary of State for Wales by abstaining on or possibly voting against our motion. I accept that this is a symbolic motion, but how else are we meant to show our strength of feeling? What levers do we have open to us? He refuses, as has already been pointed out, to give evidence to a committee. How on earth can we hold him to account?

What we need now is actions, not abstentions. We need purpose not press releases, and votes not vitriol. When it comes to the crunch today, Labour, once again, show that they are willing to stand up for Westminster to defend these indefensible actions, instead of standing up for Wales. Because of the jobs and the opportunities that could have come with this tidal lagoon, we have to make our case. Plaid Cymru is of the view that the Secretary of State has to go, and so must the very concept of the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. Westminster can never, and will never, work for Wales—this is what this shows us. So, today, we have a chance to send an unequivocal message: we will not accept our country being treated with such contempt.

I'm disappointed to be here today to speak on this motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales. He should be Wales's voice in Westminster, but it's clear that he's not that at all. His record is one of absolute, utter failure. With Alun Cairns as Secretary of State, we've seen rail electrification cancelled. In how many countries in the world is it impossible to take an electric train between the two biggest cities? Is there anywhere else in Europe? It's an absolutely shocking state of affairs.

Now we have the Swansea tidal lagoon cancelled. Here was a chance for Wales to be world leaders in renewable energy. The kind of re-industrialisation that Wales desperately needs in the twenty-first century, but Alun Cairns didn't see it that way. He has allowed this Government to scrap that project under his watch. If he had any courage—political courage—then he would have resigned over it, or perhaps he clearly just doesn't care.

If we think of the Severn Bridge, the Secretary of State continues to claim that there is a silent majority who want to see the bridge renamed, when all the polling evidence from the leading companies in the UK shows that a tiny, tiny percentage of people support a name change.

The real question here for me is why Labour is voting against this motion, and just 10 or so Labour AMs are here to debate this motion. They clearly have confidence still in the Secretary of State for Wales. It doesn't surprise me, because I've known for a long time that the Conservatives and Labour are two sides of the same coin—red and blue Tories, working together to keep Wales down.

The people of Wales have lost confidence in the Conservatives with so many projects not delivered and promises broken. But we can have nuclear reactors, nuclear mud and superprisons dumped on us. And this is the Wales that we live in today. The simple truth is that Labour are just as bad as the Conservatives. They wouldn't even admit that they supported the change in the name of the bridge. It took a freedom of information request to discover that. I wonder if, on Monday, we'll see the First Minister bending his knee to the monarchy just like the Conservative Prime Minister before him.

Wales needs to stand on its own two feet and Labour is stopping us doing that. The Conservatives are stopping us doing that. So, it's time for the Welsh people to stand up, because clearly we'll get nothing while we keep being overlooked time and time again, as part of this very unequal, so-called United Kingdom.

Thank you. And, finally, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very glad that we're having this debate today, and I'm afraid I don't share the constitutional objections that David Melding voiced earlier on. I think that this Assembly is entitled to express a view upon the competence of United Kingdom Ministers where their responsibilities touch directly upon Wales and the interests of its people. That seems to me entirely proper and I'm glad we're having this debate today, although I shall not be supporting the Plaid Cymru motion because, unfortunately, the second part of it is something that I don't agree with.

But I do think that we are certainly entitled, in relation to this iconic issue of the tidal lagoon and, indeed, rail electrification, to take a view upon the competence of the Secretary of State. It is a pretty moth-eaten and threadbare defence of the current Secretary of State that we shouldn't be debating this issue because it smacks of party politics. Well, if we in this institution are not representatives of party politics, what on earth are we here for? But that's not to say that we're making points in this debate purely for specious party political reasons. There is obviously very real anger on this side of the Chamber about the decision on the tidal lagoon, and I feel very sorry for Conservative colleagues, who clearly share that feeling but can't express it in quite the same way. Because the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet have made the tide go out upon Conservative fortunes in this respect, and left them right up the creek.

To say that Alun Cairns has great achievements to his name in the form of the fiscal framework really is to scrape the bottom of the barrel. If you go across to the Eli Jenkins tonight and, over a pint, ask the denizens at the bar what will Alun Cairns be remembered for, is it the Welsh fiscal framework or the man who torpedoed the tidal lagoon—if you can torpedo a lagoon—then I think the answer is pretty obvious and requires no explanation.

Now—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Thank you very much, Neil. I haven't got enough time to say what he has done. He is a son of Wales and, if it wasn't for him, I can assure you that Tata Steel wouldn't be there in Port Talbot. So, don't forget. You have a very short memory—[Interruption.] You have a very short memory here, and his service to this country will be remembered and he will be there to help this country. And don't forget that this tidal lagoon is not dead yet.

Well, I have great respect for minority opinion, because I'm in a very small minority myself in this house, but I think those who hold that opinion will be in an even smaller minority than the one in which I normally find myself.

But whilst I support the office of Secretary of State for Wales, I don't think I can support the current occupant of it. Of course we must continue to have a Secretary of State for Wales, because Wales is part of the United Kingdom and there are many matters of great importance that are not devolved, and he is Wales's voice in the Cabinet. But the question is: how effective is that voice? That is the key question here, and I think the examples that have been cited in this debate already show that that voice is not, in fact, effective at all.

Now, everybody knows that I am a sceptic on matters of green energy in many respects, but, if we are going to have green energy projects, it seems to me that tidal energy and wave energy offer much better long-term value for money than projects like windfarms, because at least tidal energy is predictable and it isn't subject to the intermittency of solar or wind. And, for the reasons that have been cited about the development of a global new technology that might have further important spin-offs for Wales, there are other reasons why this project should have been supported.

Now, it was indeed coincidental, wasn't it, that this decision was announced on the same day as the investment in Heathrow, for which we've been waiting it seems almost since the dawn of time to be made—that these two announcements should be made together. Because that was, I suppose, a good day to bury bad news for Wales, except that I'm afraid the roar of the jets taking off from Heathrow will not be sufficient to drown the howls of anger that come from Wales at being forgotten, once again, in the Government's priority.

So, I'm afraid to say that the Government has failed Wales in this respect and in many other respects as well. And I'm sorry, because Alun Cairns is a likeable chap, but I'm afraid politics, effective politics, is about more than being likeable. You've got to be able to achieve results. I was a schoolboy when the first Secretary of State for Wales was appointed in the form of Jim Griffiths. He was my Member of Parliament, and, I must say, in the 50-odd years since we've seen some duds holding that office, but I think Alun Cairns will be way down the list on the basis of the historical experience. And, if we look for historical parallels, perhaps the most devastating parliamentary insult ever uttered against a Government Minister was that by Disraeli about Lord John Russell, who said that if a traveller from afar were to be told that such a man were Leader of the House of Commons, he might well begin to understand how the Egyptians worshipped an insect.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford?

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this afternoon's debate. It's a debate we're having, of course, because of the UK Government's decision on Monday not to support the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project, a pathfinder project that would have tested the viability of tidal lagoon energy generation and could have paved the way for the development of a wider industry in Wales, an industry, as Simon Thomas said in opening, that had the potential to be of global significance.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's taken the UK Government almost a year and a half to reach this decision. Indeed, they had had the report of its own independent adviser that concluded that it should be supported on a no-regrets basis for fully six months before it entered a general election making the promises that Mick Antoniw pointed out in his intervention—six long months in which it could have made its mind up about it. In fact, it went to the election making promises to the people of that part of south Wales and, ever since, instead of support, we have witnessed a depressing catalogue of prevarication, obfuscation, delay, and a reluctance even to engage with the many interests who have wanted to support the proposal for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon.

As we've heard in the debate, this is a Government, of course, with form when it comes to saying 'no' to Wales. The dust has barely settled on the UK Government's short-sighted decision to renege on its promise to electrify the main line all the way to Swansea. Many of us here will remember the former Secretary of State for Wales's, Cheryl Gillan's, promises about faster electric trains all the way to Swansea as she sat on board one of those diesel trains that still make their way every day to and from Paddington. And, as we have learnt, and as Simon Thomas says, we now know that the Prime Minister personally approved the cancellation of the electrification of the Cardiff to Swansea stretch of the railway. That Cardiff to Swansea main line electrification was just one in a series of much-needed infrastructure projects to be cancelled by that UK Government.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank the Conservative Party for their amendment. It cheered up the end of a long afternoon yesterday with its powerful assertion that the age of satire is still alive and well in the seats opposite. Short of parting the Red Sea, we now know that everything that has happened in Wales in living memory was due to the single-handed efforts of the Secretary of State for Wales. On closer examination, however, I wonder, Dirprwy Lywydd, if the Table Office might consider attaching a health warning to amendments of this sort in future, a sort of 'check against reality' message, because as I began to read my way down the significant achievements of the Secretary of State for Wales, I came, first of all, to his role in the agreement with the Welsh Government of an historic fiscal framework. Well, I well remember, Dirprwy Lywydd, the autumn of 2016 as I met every month, and more than monthly, with the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke. I remember signing the historical fiscal framework with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I don't remember the Secretary of State in a single one of those meetings. I did see him in a photo opportunity with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury later in that day, and it had not occurred to me that his role in a photo opportunity would make its way into a motion in front of the National Assembly for Wales as an historic achievement. I could go through the rest of the amendment—[Interruption.] Mr Ramsay.

As an intervention was required, I'm sure that the Secretary of State was there in spirit, Cabinet Secretary—[Interruption.] And he might not have been in those particular meetings, but, of course, the role of Secretary of State is to help liaise and facilitate those sorts of agreements, and, at the end of the day, the fiscal framework was something that you worked very hard on, I know, and I have always paid you credit, Cabinet Secretary, and, without the role of Westminster, that wouldn't have happened, would it?

Well, of course, I thank Nick Ramsay—the idea of the Secretary of State for Wales as Marley's ghost, shaking his chains in the background of my meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is an entertaining one. Given his record on other matters, myself, I am inclined to be grateful for the fact that he wasn't in the room, given what might have happened had he been there.

Let me turn, Dirprwy Lywydd, to the motion itself. The Government amendment differs from the motion, I think, simply in means rather than ends. There was very little in what Simon Thomas had to say in opening this debate that I would have dissented from at all. I think it is simply that, on this side, we do not believe that it makes best sense for this institution to be drawn into passing motions of no confidence in individuals who are not elected to the National Assembly nor answerable to it.

Moreover, Dirprwy Lywydd, in the minds of the public, a motion of no confidence in a political setting has a particular purpose: if it is carried, the individual must resign. And we know that this would not be the case in this instance; it would be a gesture, the leader of Plaid Cymru told us. And my heart sank, because I really did not believe that we had set up the National Assembly for Wales to be an outpost of gesture politics.

The Government amendment does two things: it identifies the office where responsibility lies—and I do not dissent from anything that has been said by Plaid Cymru Members about the responsibility that lies with that office holder—and then it goes on to place the failures of that office in the wider context of the unsustainable state of inter-governmental machinery here in the United Kingdom.

This is more than the failure of an individual, Dirprwy Lywydd; it is the failure of a Government. Of course it is right that the National Assembly should register its verdict on the scale of anger and disappointment felt at the decision and pin the responsibility where it lies. But we have to go beyond that; we have to think about how this could be put right for the future. That's what's the Government amendment does, and I hope Members will support it this afternoon.

Thank you. Can I now call Simon Thomas to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m grateful to everyone who took part in the debate. Like Mark Drakeford, I was busily seeing this wizard appearing on the horizon with a wand that could change the course of Welsh politics. But the reality here, of course, is that decisions, or a lack of decisions, taken by the Westminster Government have held back two projects that would have been very important to Wales: the electrification to Swansea, and, secondly, the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. Although I can accept, of course, that the Conservative Party want to defend the Secretary of State for Wales—I accept that the Government here perhaps doesn’t want to support a motion of this kind because of inter-governmental issues—I can’t accept that it wouldn’t be appropriate for us as a democratically elected Parliament to express a view on the performance of the Secretary of State for Wales. It’s not unconstitutional to do that. It is political—yes, it’s political, but we are here, and we are elected, to be political and to point the finger of political responsibility at where the problem lies.

In this case, I want to pick up on one point made by the Cabinet Secretary. I accept what he says. I accept that he has an argument when he says that we shouldn’t pass a motion of no confidence in a member of another Parliament, but to go as far as to say that this place can’t express no confidence in anyone not elected to this place is going far too far. If a health board in Wales were failing entirely, we would want a vote of no confidence in the administration of that health board, would we not? So, it is appropriate that we use the mechanisms available to us, which are in order, to do that. It takes us into a political mire perhaps, I accept that, but I’m not entirely sure why the Government haven’t been more creative in responding to this, rather than deleting all and replacing—which, to all intents and purposes, agrees with the second part of our amendment that we need to make improvement in the inter-governmental machinery—and allowing Labour backbench Members to push that button to say that they have no confidence in Alun Cairns. It's as simple as that, because that, I know, is how most Members on that side of the Chamber feel.

Now, everyone has taken part in their—

Will the Member take an intervention?

I'll take a quick intervention.

Thanks for giving way. I fully understand why you want to bring forward a debate on the tidal lagoon, and, as you know, we share the disappointment of the Assembly and Wales that that hasn't gone ahead. Do you think there would have been a case, though, for putting together a motion that all parties here could have signed up to pretty easily, which would still have had issues with the UK Government, but in a constructive way? So, there was a different way to do it, which is why I do understand the point that the Cabinet Secretary made about a no confidence motion.

I remember putting together such a motion. I led a backbench debate on such a motion. Every single person in this Assembly supported that motion, and what did the Westminster Government do in response to that motion? It said, 'No, thanks.' We passed a motion here, all parties in favour of the tidal lagoon, and it's been rejected by Westminster. I'm not against what the Member has suggested, but I think today is a day for the anger expressed in Swansea to come out and for us to be the tribunes of the people in voicing that anger. That's for today.

If I could turn to some of the more positive points made. Paul Davies, welcome to your first event as leader of the Conservative group—[Interruption.] Pro tem or however you want to describe the role. Paul has clearly stated that there is still an opportunity for tidal energy, but what investor now is going to come to Wales and have negotiations with the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government believing that their money and the hard work that they’ve put in over years could be written off in a very brief statement to the House of Commons on the back of six pages of ropey mathematics, if I may say so? Just look at what Marine Energy Wales, which of course is based in Pembrokeshire, has said. They have said that this is a disregard for the objectives and ambitions of Wales in comparison to what the Westminster Government is doing. You will know that companies such as Ledwood in Pembroke Dock were all ready to be part of building this tidal lagoon.

I fear that we have pulled the plug—if I can put it in those terms—not on one scheme but on a whole industry and a whole process for many years. The next time someone comes to develop tidal energy in Wales, we’ll have to look at a company from elsewhere, from France or China, and we will have to accept their terms rather than being part of developing this here. That’s the failure of Westminster and the failure of the Secretary of state more specifically.

I don’t have any time now to cover all the points made but I will conclude by saying that we’ve received a very clear message from Westminster: two huge, important proposals worth over £2 billion and a chance to invest in Wales, creating thousands of jobs, creating new industries, creating new opportunities—they have been rejected on the basis of very, very ropey evidence. Today is the time to send a message unanimously and clearly to the Secretary of State: 'You have failed in your job, now move aside and let somebody else take on that role.'

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.