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.