The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Jane Hutt.

We now move on to item 5, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on the National Grid cables, and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion. Simon.

Motion NDM6209 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Believes that:

a) the National Grid should use underground or undersea cables or alternatives to carry electricity through National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Wales where feasible;

b) there should be a presumption in favour of underground cables or alternatives rather than electricity pylons in any new or current developments in Wales by the National Grid; and

c) a feasibility study should be carried out of the possibility of removing current pylons and replacing them with underground cables or other alternatives.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’m delighted to open this debate, which, perhaps, doesn’t have any link to the previous debate, apart from the fact that pylons are made out of steel. While we still have pylons, let’s make them out of Welsh steel, certainly. But, really, this debate is more around our electricity future, and how we plan, long term, for an electricity future that strengthens our self-sufficiency. Renewable energy in particular in Wales strengthens the decentralisation of the electricity grid to provide room and scope for more community projects to come on board and deals with and addresses a sore issue, it has to be said—that of the visual impact of energy developments in Wales, and particularly the visual impact that is delivered by electricity pylons. Because we all accept that if we’re going to produce electricity in parts of Wales, then that power has to be transported to the places where people need to use that electricity. The fact is that the parts of Wales that are either richest in natural resources for the production of electricity, which tend to be the mountains and offshore, all those parts of Wales that have a history of energy generation, such as Wylfa in Anglesey, will need some form of transmitting that power. But, very often, the visual impact of electricity pylons can be extremely intrusive.

Although, as I’ve dealt with this for 15 years, on and off, in different fora, I’m not blind to the way that people advocate or talk about energy production and pylons, and although I accept, on occasion, some of the opposition to pylons is actually a proxy for opposition to the actual project in the first place, I do think there’s a way of planning better here in Wales. I say that because I’ve seen it myself. I’ve seen alternatives. When I wrestled in a previous Assembly with the mid Wales generation projects—ones that, unfortunately, never got the go-ahead, in terms of renewable energy, due to the fact that the Liberal Democrat Minister jibbed out at the last minute in giving that go-ahead—. But one of the things that would’ve happened in mid Wales was a proliferation of pylons, and there was a lot of concern about the visual impact of those pylons. The concern about the pylons was wider than the concern about the windfarms, though there was concern about the windfarms as well, I accept that.

In particular, there was concern that there could be a significant impact on areas that people perceived as being of great either historic or beauty value for themselves, but weren’t designated as such. You can have areas of outstanding natural beauty and we have national parks; there are rules within those contexts, but an area like Meifod in mid Wales is not an area of outstanding natural beauty by designation, but it’s a very historic area, and it’s a valley that people value. I certainly engaged both with the campaigners but also with National Grid to understand how they couldn’t actually bury the cables to go through Meifod, which was, in the end, an agreement that the National Grid did provide, though it’s not going ahead now, anyway, because don’t have the windfarms that are coming in. And as part of that, I was taken to see a project that the National Grid were running to bury cables in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Unfortunately, that wasn’t in Wales, because they weren’t burying any cables in Wales. I had to go to Herefordshire, I had to go to the Wye valley outside Wales and see it happening for myself.

Now, burying cables is not without any impact at all. It’s quite messy and noisy, and is quite a scar across the landscape at the time. But those of us who’ve seen both cables and the gas pipeline, for example, from Pembrokeshire, buried over the years will know that, in time, the land does restitute itself and the cables are not to be seen, the pipelines are not to be seen and, in fact, you have a temporary blip on a landscape, if I can put it that way, rather than the more permanent blot on the landscape that pylons represent. So, the purpose of today’s debate is to try and get us to move away from some of the local arguments we have around pylons and have a national approach to this, and a national concept of where we want to take our energy production and our planning for that.

Other countries are there already. Germany, last year—well, I say last year, but it was the end of 2015, so it’s a little more than that now—in the Bundestag, passed a power cable law to ensure that major power connections were built as underground cables, rather than overland cables. In Denmark, which I visited last October, there’s been a cross-party consensus for over a decade that major cables, which—in the motion we talked about the National Grid, because, obviously, the local cables are distributing companies’ responsibility and they are looked at differently. But major cables, the National Grid in this context, should be buried. That’s 3,200 km of 150 kV and 132 kV lines to be buried in Denmark as part of their planning for a renewable energy future. So, Denmark is doing all sorts of things, like banning diesel cars from Copenhagen and going to 100 per cent renewable electricity, but they’re burying the cables. They know that people will accept part of the picture. They will accept, perhaps, changes in their landscape that come as a result of a need to move to a more energy-efficient future, but they don’t just accept it at any price. They want to see those who are responsible for planning and producing electricity meeting with them half way. One of the ways we can do that is by ensuring that we have consistent policies across Wales, not just in our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but across Wales, that respect people’s own appreciation of their landscape and allow them to approach that and to underground cables, in effect.

Undergrounding does cost more, and there’s a range of costs—a range of costs that are often quoted at around seven times more. But in fact, when you factor in the fact that underground cables are not subject to severe weather, they are more reliable if you get it right. On getting it right, as I saw when I visited the undergrounding in the Wye valley, it’s extremely important that the engineering is spot on. It’s quite a technical and detailed process, but if you can get it spot on—if you get it right—then you have longevity, and you have a more robust system. All of us would want to see, particularly as we move perhaps to a more responsive energy grid where there will be less over-production—just in case 1 million people put on the kettle at the same time half way through the cup final, or whatever—to a more responsive grid that has local energy production, local distribution, and a national system, then we need to be spot on with our engineering, and that means that we need a much more robust grid that won’t topple over or won’t be affected by severe weather, and will be there and be reliable.

So, when you factor in those factors, the cost of undergrounding goes to between two and five times more than simply putting a pile of pylons over landscape. I just think that’s one of the things that we have to face: that this may cost us more. But as part of developing a much more robust energy system, and one that can be ready for the developments of the future, whether it’s the tidal lagoon, which I want to see in Swansea bay, or developments in Anglesey, inland power or offshore developments with wind—or, even still, because we still have some potential for onshore development in wind—we want to see that undergrounded as much as possible. So, there’d be lower maintenance costs; lower transmission costs; less susceptibility to the impacts of severe weather; and a way of demonstrating to the people of Wales that we want to work with them, respecting their appreciation of their natural environment and working with them to ensure that energy future.

I hope that this debate will allow us to elucidate. Certainly, Plaid Cymru Members want to talk about their own areas, want to talk about decentralising the grid, want to talk about renewable energy, and I hope that the Government’s amendments, which I note don’t go quite far enough—. But I hope that, at the end of this debate, we’ll at least have come to some kind of agreement, so that when we talk to Ofgem and when we undertake the long-term planning of where the capital investment has to be made by these energy companies, we’ll take that opportunity to ensure that it’s made in the name of the people of Wales and in the name of the long-term sustainability and resilience of our Welsh economy.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to move formally amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

In sub-point (b) delete ‘a presumption in favour of’ and replace with ‘a preference for’.

Amendment 2—Jane Hutt

In sub-point (c) delete ‘a feasibility study should be carried out of the possibility of removing current pylons and replacing them’ and replace with ‘Ofgem should commit to continue and extend the Visual Impact Provision project for Wales to replace current pylons’.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Formally.

Thank you very much. Sian Gwenllian.

Together with the Member of Parliament, Hywel Williams, I gave evidence on the first statutory consultation of the National Grid on the north Wales link, namely the scheme that would create a line of pylons across Arfon and Ynys Môn. In Arfon, specifically, we were calling for a tunnel under the Menai strait, instead of new pylons, because of the completely negative visual impact that would have in an area of outstanding natural beauty. We had concerns about the impact of pylons on the local area and the Snowdonia national park, which is adjacent. I’m very pleased that that campaign was successful, with a tunnel under the Menai strait as part of the scheme, to date, but of course that could yet change.

During the last consultation, I stated that the small section, 1 km in length, of pylons on the main land in Arfon should be undergrounded. That continues to be part of the scheme on the table at present, and that also because of the visual impact from the national park. The national park is an essential asset for the economic and cultural well-being of the area, both now and in the future, and any development that could have a negative impact on people’s enjoyment of the views within the park could have a detrimental effect on the local economy, through tourism, and so on.

Plaid Cymru, of course, believes that powers over the grid, in addition to full powers over energy projects under the planning regime, should be in the hands of the people of Wales. This is where we should be taking those decisions. Therefore, we would not have to be dependent on the goodwill of the National Grid with the matter of the tunnel under the Menai, for example.

In the interim, we must look at how to alleviate these issues in a more realistic manner, perhaps. In the interim, we need to give consideration to the way in which decisions are taken. In processing projects, there has been a great deal of delay in the planning system. The planning authorities are responsible for ensuring that the visual impact of electricity transmission projects is mitigated, and the National Grid must consider the visual impact of various technologies and possible routes for the transmission of electricity in order to secure planning permission, and all of that takes time. Pylons do cause a great deal of bad feeling locally because of the detriment to the amenity, and this all causes a long delay in the planning system—on average, a delay of between eight and 10 years. If the undergrounding option was available from the very start, then this delay would not happen.

A lot of attention is paid to the cost of undergrounding. In 2014, the Infrastructure Planning Commission said that underground cables are between 4.5 and 5.7 times more expensive than having traditional pylons. That sounds like a large sum. But, when you look at the cost of maintenance, electricity loss, the ‘Downton’ effect and the fact, as I said, that planning decisions can take so long, when you take all of this into consideration, the figure is reduced to between twice and five times more expensive. Nobody is arguing that undergrounding, at present, isn’t more expensive, but that could change, of course, as the technology improves. Even then, it is less than 2 per cent of the production cost. That is of comparatively little significance when compared to the negative impact of pylons, which would be of great importance to the local economy.

I welcome this debate on a very important subject, actually. The spread of electricity supply in the 1920s and 1930s liberated many from much drudgery, but it did mark our landscape and rather transformed it in an ugly way. Whereas the romantic poets saw Wales as one of the great areas of the sublime and beautiful, we now all too often have to look at what would be wonderful views if it wasn’t for the fact that these huge pylons march across them in many areas. So, I do think that this is something that is really worthy of consideration as alternatives now present themselves. I do note—and Simon Thomas did refer to it briefly—that the National Grid itself has currently a plan to remove the bulkiest pylons from beauty spots around the UK, and Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons are included in that programme. It is set to cost £500 million in the first phase, which may sound a lot, but actually, you don’t get to bury that much with that sort of investment. But, at least, it is a sign that they realise that things are changing in response to public demand, but also a greater desire to see the landscape restored.

I note that the debate in Anglesey has been particularly heated. I think that that is a sign of things to come, frankly, because people will ask quite fundamental questions: ‘If we have got to put up with the power plant, why do we have the least attractive way of then transmitting that power?’ Isn’t it part of the deal you do with the local economy that you try to help them as much as possible? The costs are not inconsiderable. As a rough rule of thumb, it costs twice as much to bury a cable as to have it overhead. But I do think it is the alternative that should always be considered.

There are general advantages also that go beyond the obvious benefits to the landscape. Buried cables are more resilient of severe weather conditions. My researcher here has got in brackets ‘apart from earthquakes’; well, I’m not going to include those. It’s a natural phenomenon, so perhaps we should be mindful of that, but fortunately we don’t suffer from very strong earthquakes in Wales. There’s less of a hazard: the safety for people, wildlife and aircraft from burying cables is considerable. Also, they don’t need as much land, believe it or not, despite the fact they’re buried, as—[Interruption.] No, they don’t. If you bury a cable you need half as much land as you do for the overhead cables.

So, there are many advantages. There are disadvantages, the cost being the obvious one, but they’re also more difficult to repair and maintain, so we need to bear that in mind. However, I do think that does not take away from the general argument in favour of burying cables whenever possible, and certainly implementing a programme to bury cables wherever feasible in areas of great natural beauty.

Where we have overhead cables, I think when they’re replaced we should be looking at less intrusive versions. I am glad that the so-called T-pylon is now being tested. That’s a lot slimmer and also shorter than traditional pylons, so that may be a way, where we have to use overhead pylons, of letting them blend in a bit more, anyway, to the landscape.

Can I say that we will support the motion? Should we get to the amendments, we will support the amendments as well. The visual impact provision programme, I think, should be continued. We need to look at how we can plan this sort of programme of work, because it is a big investment. It will take time, but I’m glad we’re discussing it this afternoon. It’s a very worthy thing, and I’m sure future generations will thank us if we make this a particular priority now.

Thanks to the contributors so far. Anglesey and its representatives are unanimously against the National Grid’s plan to put a line of pylons across the island. I, the county council, the MP, the community councils and thousands of residents have been consistent in our opposition to the grid’s plans, and there have been hardly any positive responses from the grid to that chorus of voices.

Quite simply, they’re going for the cheapest option. Yes, they’ve tried to give the impression that they’ve compromised a little by agreeing to put cables in a tunnel under the Menai, but the truth is that they never intended to seek consent for another line of cables across the Menai, which, of course, is an area of outstanding natural beauty.

But, did they have an option other than pylons across the island? The answer, quite simply, is, ‘Yes, of course.’ Undersea and underground links are quite common. I recall, in my very first meeting with grid officials back in 2013, that those officials told me, ‘Well, of course we can put cables under the sea; it will be a technical challenge, but of course it can be done.’ However, since then, the idea hasn’t really been considered in earnest, as it should have been, with technical arguments put forward time and time again, and that is despite the undersea links that are developed in other parts of Britain. It’s very difficult for laypeople such as myself to make a strong case against the grid’s technical arguments, but I am still convinced that this is an option that could work.

What if we accept that the technical challenge of linking a nuclear power station by underground cables is too great a challenge? Well, there is nothing new in undergrounding technology, and there is adequate evidence that it is a more efficient technology in terms of energy loss from the grid, and its resilience in poor weather, as we’ve heard. Yes, it leaves a scarred landscape temporarily and, yes, it is more expensive, and it is cost that is at the heart of the grid’s proposals on Anglesey. Pylons are the cheapest option. The short-term cost to the grid is lower than other options—some £400 million is the additional cost, according to the grid, of undergrounding. But what of the cost of pylons to the people of Anglesey and the impact on the value of their properties and their businesses, and on tourism, never mind the impact on quality of life? Rather than putting the financial burden on the people of Anglesey—

Will you give way?

[Continues.]—the cost should—

Fe wnaf mewn eiliad.

[Continues.]—be borne by all energy users. I’ve seen estimates that the cost of undergrounding would be less than 1p a week for every electricity user in Britain over the lifespan of that link. That’s the truth.

Fe ildiaf.

Diolch. As you know, we both attended a ‘no to pylons’ meeting on Anglesey in December 2015, but do you share my concern that, although the National Grid told me that they’re paid whether they put pylons over or under ground but Ofgem require best value for the customer, the One Voice Wales Anglesey pylon committee, who’ve written to Members on their response to the National Grid consultation, say the grid has declared, since 2012, that the pylon option has been chosen on the basis of cost alone, and that the pylon option brings only negative impacts to the sustainability of small and medium-sized businesses and tourism and agriculture on the island?

You’re certainly right, I agree, and Ofgem is key. I’ll come on to some of the deliberations that I have had with Ofgem in a minute. It’s crucial that we move, as we’re hopefully going to be doing in the Assembly today, to a situation where there is an assumption in favour, through Ofgem allowing that, of undergrounding. I’ll go on.

Mae cost ychwanegol tanddaearu, wrth gwrs, yn rhywbeth y mae’r grid ei hunan yn gwybod bod yn rhaid iddo ei dalu efo datblygiadau mewn rhai llefydd. Rydym ni wedi clywed yn barod am y datblygiadau sy’n digwydd mewn parciau cenedlaethol. Nid yw Ynys Môn yn barc cenedlaethol—nid oes gennym ni gwarchodaeth deddfwriaeth parc cenedlaethol. Ond i ardal lle mae twristiaeth yn fwy pwysig nag yn unrhyw ran arall o’r Deyrnas Unedig fel cyfran o GDP, wrth gwrs, mae’n harddwch naturiol ni mor bwysig ag ydyw mewn unrhyw barc cenedlaethol.

Mi drafodais i’r mater efo Ofgem cyn y Nadolig. Mi gytunon nhw i fynnu bod y grid rŵan yn gosod allan yn llawer cliriach sut maen nhw wedi cynnal eu hasesiad o impact gweledol. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru hefyd, yn eu hymateb i ymgynghoriad y grid, wedi nodi’n gryf eu bod nhw’n credu nad oes asesiadau impact gweledol digon trylwyr wedi cael eu cynnal ym Môn. Y gwir amdani, wrth reswm, ydy nad oes modd dianc oddi wrth y casgliad bod impact gweledol gosod peilonau yn mynd i fod yn fwy nag impact unrhyw fodd arall o drosglwyddo trydan.

Dyna pam mae Denmarc a’r Almaen yn ddiweddar wedi penderfynu mai tanddaearu fydd y norm, a Denmarc yn gwario, rydw i’n meddwl, dros £2 biliwn yn ychwanegol ar danddaearu ceblau sydd yna’n bresennol. Mae Ofgem hefyd eisoes wedi cytuno i gais gen i i edrych ar y mater yma, a dechrau ystyried a ddylai hyn fod yn norm drwy Brydain gyfan hefyd.

Heddiw, mi ydym ni’n gofyn i Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru ddweud ein bod ni’n credu mai dyma ddylai’r norm fod yng Nghymru, ar gyfer prosiect cyswllt y gogledd ar draws Ynys Môn a’r tir mawr, a phob prosiect arall. Cefnogwch y cynnig fel y mae o.

Plaid have a point: buried cables would be better for the landscape than pylons, but it seems that Plaid are content to see energy prices for local people go through the roof, forgetting that not everyone earns as much as the Assembly Members who get to make the decisions. In the real world, many people are having a difficult time making ends meet and we ought to be doing all we can to ensure that they can power their homes, keep warm in the winter, and cook their food using a reliable source of energy that is as cheap as possible. Even the cheapest buried-cable option is around five times the cost of an overhead equivalent and, when faults occur, they are out of service for 25 times longer than cables on pylons. [Interruption.] No.

Rural life would be massively impacted by such long repair times. Cabling is not without damage to the landscape. Construction poses more of a risk to archaeological sites, particularly as yet undiscovered ones, underground joint bays lined with concrete have to be built every 500m to 1,000m to join together individual lengths of cable, and, where a cable has to come out of the ground for geological reasons, compounds have to be built that are possibly more visually intrusive than pylons.

The disruption to local people, tourists, and the environment would be huge during construction and could harm the local tourist economy. So, burying the cables is not the panacea Plaid would have us believe. ‘Even so, it will still look a lot better’, Plaid will say, and they’re right. But they don’t have to bear the cost: every bill payer in Wales will, of whom Plaid AMs are only 11, and will possibly be even fewer by the times any cables are laid. Two hundred and ninety-one thousand Welsh households—that’s 23 per cent—are already living in fuel poverty. What do the 11 Plaid AMs, who can afford to pay higher energy bills, say to the 291,000 Welsh households that struggle to pay their current bills—’Try not to think about the cold, but enjoy the view instead’? They’ll trot out some tired old line about needing to do it to preserve tourism. Well, I don’t believe visitors coming from towns and cities to enjoy our landscape will be put off by the odd pylon or other overhead line, particularly if it means their hotel room remains competitively priced and there is still a vibrant local tourism infrastructure that has not gone bust due to energy costs.

With the huge cost and maintenance time implications it is difficult to see how this is anything but a cynical ploy to grab a few headlines by a party that knows it can quite literally promise the earth, because the people are never going to put it into a position where it has to deliver. UKIP are making a very rational and sensible approach. [Interruption.] I thought you’d like that. UKIP are taking a very rational and sensible approach to decision making in Wales, while Plaid are promising everything without working out where the money is going to come from. Well, the electorate are bright sparks who realise that this cable-burying plan will be a shocking, shocking, waste of money. Thank you.

I should probably declare an interest here: I live on Anglesey. So, the reality is, as you drive across the Britannia bridge, the very first thing that you see if you look to the right is the beauty of the Menai straits and the most gorgeous views you can imagine. But, as you’re driving across the bridge, to your left there’s a huge pylon, which then continues all the way up to Wylfa. Now, I agree with everything that Simon Thomas has said in his opening statement and, indeed, with Rhun ap Iorwerth. You mentioned that often opposition to pylons is a proxy opposition to the project itself. That is not the case on Anglesey. [Interruption.] I’m just saying that the people of Anglesey are wholeheartedly, on the whole, for Wylfa Newydd. [Interruption.] On the whole, yes, they are, Rhun. I’ve knocked on as many doors as you’ve knocked on on Anglesey, maybe even more, and, quite frankly, people know that we need jobs on the island. But we do not want the jobs at the cost of pylons.

As far as I can see, Anglesey is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Now, as you said, we’re not a national park, so we don’t have the protection that that would give us, but, without a doubt, anybody who’s been there will admit Anglesey is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and the biggest employer on the island is tourism. Tourism, basically, makes up for—[Interruption.] Well, there’s still Wylfa, just about, but tourism makes up a huge amount of the employment opportunities for our young people and for many of the people on the island, through B&Bs and all the rest of it. People do not want to see pylons, without a doubt. If you come on holiday to such a beautiful island the last thing you want are these big, ugly pylons. There’s a total opposition to any new pylons across the island and this has been backed by One Voice Wales, which is a forum that represents 38 town and community councils on Anglesey. I’m not sure of any other time that all the democratically elected representatives living on Anglesey—so, we’ve got the MEP, the MP, two AMs, we’ve got the county councillors, community councillors, town councillors—were all in complete agreement on a particular matter, and that is that we oppose pylons being built on the island. [Interruption.] She doesn’t live on the island.

The National Grid operates as a monopoly on behalf of the Government and the grid has been highly irresponsible in ignoring the views of those elected and those who are going to be affected. I urge the National Assembly to support this motion. I will be voting against the amendments as I believe that these try to water down this motion. I believe strongly that, in Wales, all National Grid cabling should be underground—both new projects and existing power lines. Quite frankly, if it’s good enough for Denmark, it’s good enough for Wales.

I do think the fact that there is a visual impact assessment available now from the National Grid, in partnership with Ofgem, does highlight the fact that an important principle has been accepted. That is, the relevant authorities do now accept that these pylons do have an impact. Perhaps you could argue as to the extent of that impact, but the fact that that provision is in place does mean that a principle has been accepted in that regard. Of course, although the focus in this debate has been on undergrounding, the motion states clearly ‘or other alternatives’. Undergrounding isn’t the only option in certain circumstances; we could look at—. Well, we’ve heard references to alternative pylons, the T pylons, for example, which are being used now. You can look at changing the routes, you can rationalise the lines that exist in certain situations, too, and, of course, you can look at introducing comprehensive programmes to screen much of the infrastructure—the substations, and so on. So, we shouldn’t think that undergrounding and all the costs attached to that—and it is expensive, we accept that—is the only option. But, although it is expensive, as we’ve also heard, the maintenance costs are lower, the transmission losses are lower, there is less risk of damage in terms of weather, and so on, less visual impact, of course, and it would be more palatable to the public, which would make it more likely that some specific projects would be supported, as we’ve already heard during the course of this debate.

But it does tell me something that we are where we are on the journey. It tells me where we are on this journey of moving from old energy to new energy, if you like, that we have to have this debate, and that we are still talking about the National Grid in its current form. Because I’ve said on a number of occasions in this Assembly that it’s about time that we moved away from the hub and spoke model that we currently have of energy generation, that is, that energy is generated in large central points—the hub—and then transferred inefficiently, certainly in terms of energy loss in transferring it along a grid that is aged, inefficient, as I’ve said, costly to maintain, and so on. We need to move to a far more flexible, more modern, and smart model—some kind of series of local grids, a sort of spider’s web of a grid, instead of the hub and spoke model that we now have, where the energy, of course, is used far more closely to where it’s generated, or is generated far more closely to where it is used. Now, such networks would be more efficient, as I say, and would offer more resilience, where you don’t face a situation where, if one major energy centre fails for some reason, half the country is without power, that it is far more resilient in that sense and is less intrusive in terms of the landscape, and cheaper in terms of maintenance costs. I still don’t feel that this Government has moved decisively enough in that direction in terms of its policies and investments. We need to look in earnest at the future of new energy. We want to see a more dispersed energy system across the nation.

We are calling for more powers for Wales, of course, so that we can control the network. We need operational and legislative powers to allow us to have more control over these local distribution networks and the grid more generally in Wales. Those aren’t my words, by the way, but a direct quote from a cross-party report of the Environment and Sustainability Committee of the previous Assembly, ‘A Smarter Energy Future for Wales’. And, as I said, the Government needs to move more swiftly and to take action on the recommendations in that report in order to start this process of building the better energy future that we want to see. It is about time that we moved away from old energy, and, as somebody said, new energy needs to do to old energy what mobile phones have done to the phone kiosk. But, in the meantime, of course, there’s far more that we could do to mitigate the impact of these cables and pylons, and I would encourage you all to support the motion.

This has been a very interesting debate, and I was particularly interested in what Llyr Gruffydd has just said about a hub-and-spoke method of electricity distribution. I’ve got a great deal of sympathy with the Plaid Cymru motion, although I think my friend Michelle Brown also had some important things to say in her contribution to the debate—points that are often, perhaps, ignored.

I do wonder what the benefit will be overall of burying electricity cables underground if we then pepper the countryside through which they go with endless windfarms. So, why aren’t we debating today burying windmills underground, as well? I ask ironically. So, I do think that there is a fundamental contradiction in Plaid Cymru policy, because travelling through—

One of the points raised by Simon Thomas was that it’s the agglomeration effect that they’ve taken into account in Denmark in saying, ‘Right. Let’s underground a lot of these cables because of the need for investment in renewables’.

Denmark is, of course, a much smaller country than the United Kingdom—

And Wales?

Well, not smaller than Wales, but the landscape is very different in Denmark from what it is in Wales and they’re surrounded by a good deal more water, proportionately, than we are in Wales. Denmark has enormous agglomerations of windmills in the sea, whereas we have, relatively speaking, fewer.

There are 88,000 pylons throughout the United Kingdom. I don’t know what the figure is for Wales, but in my view, they are a blot on the landscape. Some man-made structures, like the Menai bridge, are an addition to the landscape, and the poets and writers of the early nineteenth century, alluded to by old uncle David here, of course, regarded them as part of the sublime and the beautiful. But I don’t think anybody’s ever written a poem about a pylon as yet.

I do think that we have to face the reality that if we are going to operate in a world of artificially increased electricity prices, this is going to have very significant adverse effects on the country. We’ve adopted a policy commitment enshrined in law—the only country in the world to do so—of cutting our carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Now, this implies that, by 2030—only 13 years away now—we will end cooking and heating by gas, which will mean we’ll be consuming more electricity, and therefore, we’ll need even more powerlines in order to distribute it; and 60 per cent of cars will be electric by then, which will require even more electricity. Quite how we’re going to achieve this, considering that fossil fuels currently generate more than half our electricity, I don’t know.

The total cost of this in terms of subsidies and carbon taxes between 2014 and 2020 alone is £90 billion—that’s equivalent to £3,500 per household in the United Kingdom. Michelle Brown referred to the impact that fuel prices have upon the incomes of those who are at the lower end of the income scale. I think that this is a very important element that we should consider. In Wales, there are 291,000 households in fuel poverty—that’s 23 per cent of the total—and meanwhile, the subsidies that are paid for these renewable energy projects are going into the hands, very often, of rich landowners like David Cameron’s father-in-law who earns £1,000 a day from it.

So, whilst I broadly support the aims of the Plaid Cymru motion, I do believe that the exercise would be almost pointless in the era that we live in of artificially increased energy prices to fund renewable projects, which are themselves perhaps an even bigger blot on the landscape than the pylons that are sought to be replaced.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this topic forward for debate today and Members for their respective contributions. I’m sure that Members will understand that I am limited in what I can say about particular projects or proposals, given my statutory role under town and country planning and the marine licence regimes.

Last month in this Chamber, I indicated my energy priorities in my energy statement, and I think I certainly made clear that I want to move away from ‘old energy’, as Llyr Gruffydd referred to. I’m now ensuring that our priorities are shared with the UK Government, Ofgem, the National Grid and others in making our grid infrastructure fit for purpose. The consenting of new high voltage grid infrastructure is the responsibility of the UK Secretary of State, but of course the Welsh Government is a statutory party to the consenting process, and we take a close interest in the management and development of the infrastructure, given its wider impact on our communities and on our wider economy.

As a country, we need a robust, fit-for-purpose grid that enables our low carbon energy objectives to be delivered. However, it does need to be delivered in a way that is not to the detriment of the surrounding environment. In particular, we fully recognise the importance of our national parks and our areas of outstanding natural beauty. They are of equal status in terms of landscape and scenic beauty. Both must be afforded the highest status of protection from inappropriate developments, and our national planning policy reiterates objectives to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of these areas. Reflecting this, our national policy for large-scale renewable wind energy projects, as set out in TAN 8, seeks to limit new large-scale onshore windfarms to the seven strategic search areas, deliberately avoiding national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. We expect National Grid to take a similar approach when identifying routes for new overhead power lines to avoid these areas, and to appropriately mitigate the impact of new grid connections on these areas if they are proposed in the vicinity.

Our preferred position on new grid infrastructure more generally is one of undergrounding; that’s absolutely the position we start from. Without prejudice to this position, we are continuing our engagement with the National Grid to mitigate the visual impact of any potential new transmission lines, and ensure the most appropriate technology is used for the environment and communities in which it’s to be deployed. We recognise a balanced view must be taken against costs, which could render otherwise good projects financially unviable. Sian Gwenllian, I think, mentioned—and I do apologise if I personally translated it wrong—the cost of underground on the north Wales project was only 2 per cent more, but my understanding is it’s significantly more than that. But, of course, many factors have to be considered when you look at the cost of undergrounding. It depends on the geology of where it is, the amount of power it has to carry, the length of the cables, and the method of installation.

The First Minister recently met with National Grid’s chief executive, and re-emphasised the need for a balanced and sensitive approach to major grid development. In relation to the north Wales connection project across Anglesey, as part of the development consent order process, National Grid’s pre-application consultation closed on 16 December 2016. Welsh Government provided a formal response to National Grid, in which we set out our preferred approach for undergrounding, and we welcomed National Grid’s commitment in the pre-application consultation documents to keep the option of utilising the third crossing under review as proposals progress. In relation to mid Wales, National Grid’s mid Wales project is now under review due to the UK Government’s decisions relating to onshore wind projects, to which the grid was due to connect.

I accept the development of the National Grid has not always sufficiently recognised the importance of our landscapes, and in recognition of this, Ofgem, as part of a price control, introduced a new policy for the transmission owner to reduce the visual impact of pre-existing infrastructure in national parks and AONBs. The price controls and incentives include an allowance of £500 million to mitigate the visual impact of existing electricity infrastructure, and we welcome the inclusion of the section of line near Porthmadog as part of this project. We will continue our discussions with Ofgem for the potential future funding of projects in Wales in relation to the visual impact provisions, as we believe there is potential to reduce the impact of other existing transmission lines in Wales.

So, to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, the Government supports the principles of the motion proposed, where feasible. We will continue our discussions with both National Grid and Ofgem to ensure the most appropriate technology is deployed, and we will continue impress the importance of reducing the impact of existing transmission in our most cherished landscapes.

Thank you very much. I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to reply to the debate and thank everyone who’s participated in it. It’s true to say that this is a debate that literally effects every constituency, because everyone has pylons crossing their constituency, and everyone has pylons where perhaps they wouldn’t want to see those pylons.

May I start with the Minister’s response to the debate? I am pleased to hear that the Welsh Government is far more involved with Ofgem now on these plans, and with National Grid, on the need to make preparations, because the motion and Plaid Cymru accept that we can’t move to an improved situation overnight. This is something that we have to prepare for now as we renew and develop anew and to ensure that, where appropriate, as the motion says, we underground and, as Rhun ap Iorwerth reminded us, that we also need to undersea the cables, where necessary, for our future. Therefore I am pleased that the Government is now far more involved than they were in the past with National Grid and Ofgem.

Having said that, I do think that the Government amendments are a little weak. We will certainly be rejecting those, at first sight, but we do want to work with Government where possible in order to be able to promote the interests of Wales, particularly with the National Grid and Ofgem.

The debate itself has acknowledged certain successes, and Sian Gwenllian mentioned the campaign to ensure that the cables are included in a tunnel under the Menai or on the third bridge—perhaps the timing isn’t quite right there, but we certainly want to ensure that the beauty of the Menai strait is treasured, maintained and respected. Nathan Gill referred to that point, and I recognise his contribution in supporting this motion.

Unusually for a backbench debate, we had three members of UKIP—not three members of the UKIP group, but three members of UKIP—expressing different views. It’s good to see freedom of expression within a party, but I would suggest that, perhaps, we need some more concept of where you want to take energy in Wales and economic policy in Wales, rather than having three different opinions on something that is so important.

Whilst we’re discussing that, I don’t think I heard a sadder argument made at all than Michelle Brown’s case made for moving forward here—the cheapest option possible. Well, that would allow the Aberthaw power station to overproduce gasses that are responsible for the deaths of 67 people every year in Wales. That’s the sort of attitude that led to smog in London in the 1950s, and 2,000 miles of smog now across the cities of China. I don’t accept that sort of future for Wales and I am seeking a far more prosperous and healthy future for all the residents of Wales. So, the ‘cheapest possible’ debate isn’t going to hold water here. We need energy that is reliable—

Andrew R.T. Davies rose—

In a second, yes. We need energy that is reliable, that is under Welsh control and is as cheap as people can afford, but also cheap enough that it can’t be disrupted by future changes.

Fe ilidaf.

As someone who lives very close to the Aberthaw power station and has visited the management on many occasions there, do you not recognise that a huge amount of investment has gone in to control emissions from that power station and there is a solution there? Working with Natural Resources Wales, that solution can extend the lifespan of a critical part of the energy infrastructure in Wales. Do you not accept that it would be a real tragedy is that plant did shut and it would be a loss to that local community?

What I do accept is that his Government has said the plant must shut by 2025, and that’s his Government’s decision—nothing that I’ve said in this Chamber.

I droi’n ôl at y ddadl rydym ni’n ei chynnal yn fan hyn, sef ar beilonau, diolch i Rhun, a oedd yn ei gwneud yn glir iawn—ac mae pob un Aelod wedi derbyn yr ohebiaeth gan gyngor sir Fôn hefyd sydd yn rhoi—. Rydw i’n meddwl mai’r pwynt fan hyn sydd yn hollbwysig yw bod pobl yn gallu croesawu datblygiad ynni yn eu hardal, boed hynny’n ddatblygiad ynni mwy ‘controversial’ a dadleugar fel ynni niwclear, neu ddatblygiad ynni gwynt neu ddatblygiad o fath gwahanol fel morlyn bae Abertawe. Ond beth nad ydyn nhw eisiau ei weld yw eu bod yn cael eu trin fel eu bod nhw’n derbyn popeth, fel eu bod nhw’n rholio drosodd ac yn dangos eu boliau i’r cwmnïau ac i’r Grid Cenedlaethol. Mae angen parch ar gymunedau. Mae angen parch ar gymunedau sir Fôn. Dyna beth mae Rhun wedi ei wneud yn ei ymgyrchoedd e, a dyna beth rydym ni’n ceisio ei wneud yng nghyd-destun y ddadl yma hefyd.

Mae Llyr, wrth gwrs—ac rydw i am ichi gofio un peth o’r ddadl yma, sef y syniad yma o grid gwe pry copyn—dyna roedd e’n ei galw hi, ond gwe corryn y byddwn i’n ei ddweud—sydd yn ddarlun gwell o lawer, rydw i’n meddwl, sydd hefyd yn golygu, wrth gwrs, y bydd, o bosibl, llai o’r ceblau trymion yma i’w gweld yn y tirwedd, gan y byddwn ni’n ailedrych ar sut rydym ni’n gallu rhoi’r grid mwy cynaliadwy a mwy tymor hir yna at ei gilydd. Yn syml iawn, os ydyw’n ddigon da i Ardal y Llynnoedd yn Lloegr, fel bod pob cebl yn cael ei danddaearu, mae’n ddigon da i nifer o ardaloedd yng Nghymru sydd mewn parc cenedlaethol neu ardal o harddwch eithriadol, neu nifer o ardaloedd yr ŷm ni, fel Cymry, yn meddwl sydd yn bwysig i ni—o ran harddwch neu dreftadaeth hanesyddol. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen yn fawr iawn at adroddiad Dafydd Elis-Thomas, sydd ddim yma heddiw, ond rwy’n sôn amdano fe. Mae ei adroddiad yntau wedi cael ei gomisiynu gan y Llywodraeth ynglŷn â thirwedd, i gael rhyw gysondeb rhwng y ffordd yr ŷm ni’n trin parciau cenedlaethol, ardaloedd o harddwch naturiol a’r ardaloedd sydd yn bwysig i bobl leol hefyd. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at yr adroddiad hwnnw. Mae angen ei weld e, Weinidog, os caf i ddweud hynny wrthych chi. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at ei weld, achos mae hwnnw’n rhan o’r darlun yr ŷm ni eisiau ei weld yn y fan hyn.

Wrth gloi, a gaf i ddiolch i David Melding am ddod â darn o farddoniaeth ysbrydoledig ac am feddwl yn nhermau’r ‘sublime’, fel yr oedd yn ei ddweud, gan gofio, wrth gwrs, fod pobl wedi darganfod yng Nghymru ramantiaeth am y tro cyntaf?

It’s not usual, therefore, to conclude an Assembly debate with a poem, but I shall do so, since David Melding was so kind to mention poetry. Because I was immediately reminded of Stephen Spender’s poem, ‘The Pylons’. So, I shall read out from that poem—not the whole poem. I shall just give a little flavour from Stephen Spender’s poem on pylons:

The secret of these hills was stone, and cottages / Of that stone made, / And crumbling roads / That turned on sudden hidden villages.

Now over these small hills, they have built the concrete / That trails black wire; / Pylons, those pillars / Bare like nude giant girls that have no secret.’

Thank you very much. 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.