The Westminster Government seems to have an energy policy based upon offshore wind and nuclear power. As prototypes are by their very nature more expensive, and the future storage costs of nuclear are capped—we would never have had a nuclear power station built if they weren't capped—it is not a level playing field. Did the Westminster Government explain why the price for nuclear—which, as we all know, is an over-60-year-old technology—was acceptable, but the same price, which was the final offer of the same strike price for the tidal lagoon as for Hinkley, was not acceptable? Have the Westminster Government explained why one is acceptable and one isn't, when one's a prototype and one's a 60-year-old technology with a capped final cost?