The next item is the debate on tidal lagoons and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Lesley Griffiths.

Motion NDM6237 Jane Hutt, Paul Davies, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Welcomes the recently published Hendry Report which supports the case for developing a tidal lagoon energy industry in the UK.

2. Recognises the need for the UK Government to fully engage with the Welsh Government in development of tidal lagoon policy and implementation.

3. Recognises that, in securing the transition to a low carbon economy, Wales should gain the maximum economic benefits from the proposed tidal lagoon energy industry and other tidal technologies, subject to such projects receiving the necessary approvals.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the opportunity for us to debate the potential for tidal lagoons in the UK following the recent publication of the Hendry report. Whilst we support the principle of tidal lagoons in Wales, we are very mindful, of course, to the key considerations and approvals that must be given to any proposed project, including full environmental considerations through the marine licensing process and also obtaining a lease from the Crown Estate. Therefore, Members, I’m sure, will understand that I am limited in what I can say about particular projects or proposals, including the proposed tidal lagoon for Swansea bay, given my statutory role under the marine licensing regime and other statutory processes.

As indicated by the First Minister during his questions on 31 January, we welcome the recently published Hendry report, which supports the case for developing a tidal lagoon energy industry in the UK, and the specific recognition it gives to the Welsh projects already under development around the Welsh coast. Together with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, who will be closing this debate, I had a positive meeting on 25 January with Charles Hendry, in which we discussed the findings of his report, including issues such as financing structure, the proposal for a pathfinder project, the links with other energy developments and decommissioning.

On 6 December I outlined my priorities in relation to energy, one of which is to drive the low-carbon energy transition to deliver maximum benefits for Wales. Tidal lagoons provide a clear opportunity to contribute towards this goal. Wales is well placed to take advantage of tidal energy opportunities, with a high tidal range and much of our 1,200 km of coastline potentially suitable to support tidal energy developments. This means we can grow a vibrant Welsh industry that delivers prosperity while supporting our decarbonisation objectives. We are taking a cross-Government approach to the opportunities offered by tidal lagoons, such as supply chains, skills infrastructure and statutory requirements. We are already developing our skills base and providing practical and financial support for energy opportunities that accelerate the low-carbon transition in these areas.

I will be consulting on a draft national marine plan for Wales this summer. The plan will highlight the strategic significance of our tidal resources and provide an integrated framework for the sustainable development of our seas. This approach enables us to ensure projects around the UK can bring maximum economic benefit to Wales through the development of expertise and supply chains to give us a firm foundation on which to engage with industry and the UK Government.

The UK Government, which is now considering the report findings, needs to fully engage with us in its development of tidal lagoon policy and implementation. Indeed, we have developed an extensive knowledge base to support the industry, which is recognised by Hendry in his report. I hope the publication of the Hendry report will provide the UK Government with sufficient assurance to provide the support this industry requires. We look forward to discussing how the UK Government intends to take the report forward. Officials are working across Government to consider the report’s recommendations and I will provide Members with a further update once I know the direction the UK Government intends to take.

So, to conclude, we have consistently stated our commitment in principle to supporting the development of a sustainable tidal lagoon industry in Wales. We’ve highlighted our support to industries in Wales, and how Wales is ideal for such developments, provided benefits from the developments are retained within Wales. This commitment is set out in our programme for government, ‘Taking Wales Forward’, and I now very much look forward to hearing the views of other Members on the principle of tidal lagoons and the motion under debate today.

I’m very pleased that the Assembly has come together, hopefully, to express its support for the concept of tidal lagoon energy. I do fully understand why the Government is not in a position to give direct support to a single project, but I would like to place on record that Plaid Cymru is content to do so—and is in a different position, of course—and can state that we are in favour of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon as a pathfinder, as explained in the Hendry report.

Like some hundreds of local people, I have invested in the tidal lagoon and, to that end, I do have an interest in that as one the community shareholders. There are hundreds like me, and I very much hope that in due time the Government will also invest in the tidal lagoon, and we’ll turn to that a little later in the debate.

First of all, let’s see what the Hendry review stated. I haven’t read a review into difficult issues in Westminster that has been so clear in its conclusions for some years, I must say. It states very clearly that after years of debate, the evidence clearly demonstrates that tidal lagoons are cost-effective as part of the energy mix of the UK; it make that point very clearly. It also says clearly that the UK Government faces a strategic decision as much as an economic one, and it also states clearly that moving forward with the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay as the first one, as a pathfinder project, as it is described, is a policy that could not be regretted—it’s a no-brainer, in other words. And I think in that context we now want to see a positive response, possibly as soon as the budget in March, from the Westminster Government.

We see this as something that is a game changer for the energy industry in Wales, and prepares the way for the future in Wales. For the first time since the early days of wind energy, it gives Wales an opportunity to be in the vanguard in terms of new technology, and of course as the Cabinet Secretary’s just outlined, it gives us an opportunity to see similar developments across the Bristol channel and also in north Wales. But it’s also true to say that Hendry is looking at this project as something that could be used a template to see the impact on the environment and on fisheries, to see whether we can actually get the energy in the way that we would want, and whether it’s true that the turbines work effectively and efficiently in that context.

In that context, there is general support—there are questions, of course, but there is general support—which has been expressed by a number of environmental organisations from Friends of the Earth to the RSPB, who are all eager in this context, where we’re already burning fossil fuels along the Bristol channel, which pollute the environment, to see something more positive and cleaner being introduced. So, as a catalyst for the development of the rest of the sector, and to put Wales in the vanguard of this new technology, and also as something that will be in and of itself a huge boost to the Swansea bay area, I very much hope that the Assembly today will support the motion, and send a clear message to the Westminster Government to respond positively to the concept of a tidal lagoon.

It will create over 2,000 jobs during its construction, and will also generate over £300 million in GVA in the Swansea bay area. The Welsh Government, of course, have to respond to this challenge. They will need a skills strategy in order to ensure that we take full advantage of these opportunities. The company behind the lagoon have pledged that at least half of the funding will be spent in Wales, and that’s out of a capital spend of over £1.3 billion. And the tidal lagoon, once completed, will produce enough energy for 90 per cent of homes in the Swansea bay area for over a century. So for me, and for Plaid Cymru, this is something we should support.

Rwy'n meddwl bod yna un pwynt olaf yr hoffwn ei wneud, sef y gallai hwn fod yn gyfle enfawr i ni ddefnyddio fframwaith y DU er ein budd ni yma yng Nghymru. Mae dadansoddiad diweddar yr ydym wedi edrych arno ar y fframwaith rheoli ardollau, sydd ar hyn o bryd yn golygu bod Cymru yn elwa ychydig mwy na'n cyfran o’r boblogaeth oherwydd y ffaith bod gennym dariffau bwydo i mewn ac ynni adnewyddadwy ac yn y blaen, yn dangos y byddwn, o fewn 10 mlynedd, wedi lleihau ein cyfran o’r fframwaith rheoli ardollau hwnnw i lai nag 1 y cant o’r gwariant a ragwelir. Mae hynny oherwydd bod y fframwaith rheoli ardollau hefyd yn cynnwys tân glo, a bydd hwnnw wedi mynd erbyn 2025, ac wrth gwrs, nid oes gennym unrhyw ddatblygiadau mawr newydd o ran gwynt ar y tir yn dod yn weithredol yn y cyfamser. Felly, gallwn ddefnyddio hynny er mwyn i Gymru elwa.

Pe byddai, er enghraifft, Llywodraeth Cymru yn cymryd cyfran ecwiti o fewn y morlyn llanw ym mae Abertawe, byddem wedyn yn cael y ffi honno’n ôl o werthiant y trydan dros lawer o flynyddoedd, sy'n rhywbeth y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn cytuno ag ef ac yn ei gefnogi. Felly, unwaith eto, mae'n benderfyniad hawdd i gefnogi hyn o ran newid yn yr hinsawdd, o ran cynhyrchu ynni, o ran buddsoddi ym mae Abertawe, ond mae hefyd yn benderfyniad hawdd inni i gyd i fod yn rhan o hyn a bod yn rhan o ddyfodol ynni.

I’m delighted to speak in favour of this motion, which has been laid in the name of Paul Davies and others. I’m very pleased to see cross-party support. Can I commend the self-discipline of the Cabinet Secretary, who obviously has to protect the role that she will play in a statutory function when dealing with certain aspects of the regulations that are likely to be generated under this matter? But I think the rest of us are not so encumbered, and we can speak with great enthusiasm.

Certainly, the Welsh Conservative Party fully supports its £1.3 billion potential project. We submitted evidence to the Hendry review, we also took part in the meeting that Charles Hendry had here in the Assembly when politicians from across the Assembly were here, and I think we made a very powerful impression on him, just because of the strength of the consensus and the enthusiasm we have for this transformative project. It really does offer Wales the opportunity to be a world leader in energy again, and I think that sort of opportunity does not occur very, very often.

I’ll just turn to the Hendry review, which, like Simon—. Occasionally in life, you await a review, you know it’s important, and then it sort of reads as if you or your mother wrote it—it just has everything in it that you wish to hear—and that was pretty much how it turned out. I think the evidence was really quite overwhelming, and the message to the UK Government was very, very clear and not hedged at all, but it saw the ambition and described it. In terms of what the report emphasises, that here, the UK, with Wales in the lead, could be a world leader in this technology—we’ll be there like the Danes and the Germans were for wind technology in the 1960s—it could deliver a security of supply as obviously the tides, as long as the moon remains, are going to be there; deliver on our decarbonisation commitments in a very helpful way; and have substantial opportunities for the local supply chains. So, I think all those are really important factors—. I’ll give way to Darren Millar.

I’m very grateful to the Member for giving way. One of the other benefits, of course, that these sorts of schemes can deliver is a flood protection benefit. Of course, on the coast in north Wales there’s an opportunity to develop a tidal lagoon to protect Colwyn Bay, Conwy and parts of the coastline of Denbighshire. Do you agree with me that that sort of opportunity, because it’s going to deliver potential flood protection benefits, does mean that the Welsh Government could potentially get financially involved with delivering this project in order to make it happen?

Yes. I think the Member may have already seen Natural Resources Wales’s report, and it does emphasise the flood protection benefits that tidal lagoon projects could bring, and that’s going to be really, really important. The Hendry review observes that tidal lagoons can play a cost-effective part in the UK energy mix, and I think that was a real breakthrough, because there was some questioning about the cost-effectiveness of this technology—it’s a long-term one, but viewed in the long term, it is clearly seen to be cost-effective. The case for this as a pathfinder project is described in the review as ‘very strong’, and then likely to lead to cost-competitive larger lagoons in other areas, such as north Wales, but potentially also Cardiff and Newport, as well as in other sites around the UK. So, this is really, really important.

The thoroughness of the Hendry review goes into calls for the UK Government to adopt a clear strategic approach to tidal energy, similar to offshore wind. So, I think we need to see that. He also calls for a new body, a tidal power authority, that would act as an arm’s-length agency, so that the maximum advantage could be taken of this technology. So, we see the extent, really, of what is before us.

Can I just turn, finally, to the advantages for Wales? I won’t talk specifically—I think other Members will talk about the Swansea project. But if other projects follow in the most likely sites, we could see a £20 billion level of investment from the private sector, over 33,000 jobs, potentially, in construction and manufacturing for Wales, and an annual benefit in our GVA, if these projects go ahead, of £1.4 billion. It is remarkable. Wales was once the Kuwait of coal; we could now be the world leader in tidal energy. Let’s grasp the challenge.

We thank the Welsh Government for bringing this debate forward and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. The Swansea tidal lagoon presents a huge opportunity for the UK and Wales to be at the forefront of this groundbreaking technology. Although the Swansea lagoon is just a pilot project for this industry, we understand that Cardiff is a front-runner in the plans for the development of a full-sized installation, and, of course, we heard earlier about the possibilities in north Wales, and we should, of course, include the possibilities in Newport as well.

It is hard to overestimate the potential for Welsh industry in the construction and technology phase of this development. There are companies in Wales and the Swansea region that already have the technical ability to provide much of the infrastructure for this project, but it will also provide these and many others with the opportunity to develop the capability to provide full tidal lagoon technological and infrastructural expertise. In addition, there is huge potential for companies in the down-the-line supply chain to engage in this project.

The Hendry review of tidal lagoons emphasises the advantages of security of supply and the carbon-negative impact of such developments, which, of course, impact positively on the Welsh Assembly’s aim for zero-carbon energy supply. It should also be noted that this industry not only has great potential in the UK, but there are many locations worldwide where tidal lagoons are viable options in electrical production. It is vital that the UK Government act decisively to move this project forward so that Wales and the UK will be at the cutting edge of this exciting new technology and be in a position to tender for such developments, wherever they are located. There is full cross-party consensus on this development, so let us continue to pressurise the UK Government to act on the recommendations in the Hendry review and note that we in the Welsh Assembly will not tolerate unacceptable delays in proceeding with this vital project.

I’d like to touch on three topics: fish, ambition, and St David. We’ve talked about the merits of this project being a commercial project, fully reliant on private finance, as one of its many merits, but, of course, we have a regulatory environment that risks making many of these projects non-starters. We may well want patient investors, but there aren’t many irrational investors. There are no time limits in force and, in such an environment, there’s a real risk that the Swansea project could collapse and future marine projects may be put off. Now, I’m all for arm’s-length regulation, but we can barely see the NRW from across the horizon, and I do question the way that the legislation has been set out and the way the NRW has been set up. They can take as long as they like. Ministers have no powers—they can’t set a deadline for a decision, they can’t call it in, nor can they appeal. We may find ourselves in the absurd position of having all the consents we need from Whitehall, but, because of lack of expertise in NRW, the project may well fall into the sea—

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Is he aware of article 11 of the Natural Resources Body for Wales (Establishment) Order 2012 that gives Welsh Ministers a general power to direct Natural Resources Wales as to the exercise of its powers?

It may surprise Mark Reckless to know that I was not aware of that particular sub-clause, but I’m grateful to him for bringing it to attention.

It is not acknowledged that many of the private investors here have been incredibly generous in their patience, and, without them, this project would be dead in the water. David and Heather Stevens, in particular, do not seek the limelight, but, without their willingness to back this project, all our talk of sustainable development would be rather academic.

I want to touch on ambition, secondly. It seems that, for too long, we’ve been too nervous to be fully committing to these projects. I think, some time ago, I remember seeing protesters outside of this Assembly, with some of my fellow Assembly Members here now standing alongside them, against windfarms in mid Wales. It’s possible that that spooked many people. Senior officials, I fear, are so committed to nuclear that they appear to see renewables as, at best, a distraction, and, at worst, a threat. We can set—we have set—a climate change target. We have set an ambition to frame public policy in a way that serves the well-being of future generations. Reducing and then eliminating the use of fossil fuels does both those things. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon sends an important signal that we want to harness the power of the sea and stimulate green jobs in the process, but we can’t be ambivalent about it. We must be full-throated. We shouldn’t be quietly supportive in the background; we must buy a stake in the holding company and benefit from Wales being the first in a global wave of developments.

Finally, I come to Saint David and his call for us to do the little things. We want to see—well, I certainly want to see—100 per cent of our energy generated from renewable sources. Indeed, I’d like to see more, so that we can sell our energy and generate wealth for Wales, and let our natural resources, once again, become a hallmark of our economic base. The lagoon is an important part of that, but we can’t just rely on a couple of big projects to deliver our ambitions. We need to do more. We need to do the little things—hundreds of little things simultaneously. We need to plan for every home to be a mini power station that generates more energy than it needs and use fully energy conservation and reduce the amount of energy we need—often the bit that is neglected in these debates. This is part of the foundational economy focus that we want to see: marrying this embrace of emerging technologies with a focus on the economy of the everyday. Local energy production has got huge potential to generate local economic spin-offs, local supply chains, local skills, and, crucially, to reconnect people’s behaviour with their energy consumption. When people are able to see the energy that they are creating, they’re producing, that’s far more likely to impact on their habits and their attitudes and their own behaviour. So, we do require leadership. We require a permissive regulatory environment and we require money. And, if Saint David isn’t to your tastes, perhaps we should think about Max Boyce, who told us we need an incredible plan, because, as he said, where there’s a will there’s a way. Thank you.

Well, Members, I think we’re standing on the threshold of something really rather significant. I think it takes a certain level of courage to face global political shifts and then to determine to bring good from them. Sometimes, drawing out that good can be seismic in itself, and that’s an adoption of new thinking.

Now, with some of my colleagues, I’ve just come back from CERN in Geneva—an exceptional institution that brings unique opportunity to that part of the world. It began in 1954 when scientists from 12 countries left behind the first half of the twentieth century and embarked on the first step in breaking through the limits of engineering, computing, and physics. In a tunnel 100m down and 27 km long, built for an earlier, costly project, the £2.8 billion Large Hadron Collider today is just part of a phenomenal but also expensive story that attracts investment from twice as many countries as it did 60 years ago.

I bet many Governments have questioned the cost of their contributions over the years, but do we now wonder: could there have been a cheaper way to discover the God particle? Might the development of the worldwide web have been achieved for less? Now, neither of these particular revolutions would have been foreseen in 1954. What those Governments invested in, decade after decade, was the moving frontier—the acknowledgement that looking forward, thinking forward, spending forward, is the only hope of being ready for those genuinely global challenges. We’re already doing it to a degree with climate change, for example, or global water and food resources, the global economy, even—all inter-related, of course, but requiring a new outlook. This is why I say we are on the threshold of something significant, although it may seem small, because tidal lagoons are, in part, a new answer to the question of future energy production.

Burning fossil fuels: that’s cheap, but cheap energy isn’t value for money when resources are finite, security of supply is uncertain, and the cost of pollution and poor health are taken into account. Wind energy: cheapish to produce, but often unpopular, unreliable, and needing expensive back-up—value for money? Nuclear: not especially expensive when the cost is set off over a lifetime. It’s reliable, but very high risk in terms of cost of security breach. Is that value for money? And lagoons: not especially expensive when the cost is set off over a lifetime, reliable technology, but not tested—is that value for money?

Would the Member give way?

Very briefly. It’s quite a long speech, sorry, Simon.

Just to reiterate that I hope she’s able to see in the Hendry report that he compared nuclear with the tidal lagoon and said, over a similar lifetime cost analysis, the tidal lagoon was actually cheaper than nuclear.

Well, that’s what I am coming to, because, in terms of value for money, I’m asking: why on earth don’t we just find out? Tidal lagoons are new thinking. Like CERN, this is a world first. This is a new industry, a global industry, with global implications, and it’s ours for the taking here in the UK. It’s not a question of ‘could’, David Melding; it’s a question of ‘should’. The Hendry report is convincing on the part that tidal energy could play in meeting our needs, but that is just part of a much bigger story. It is convincing on the immediate local economic benefits that a no-regrets pathfinder lagoon would bring to my region: it’s transformative for Swansea as a city, he says. But it’s true for other parts of the UK as well. It’s convincing on the economic effect of other lagoons in the south east and north of Wales, and the fit with the UK industrial strategy. But the real value for money comes from being the first—the UK being the undisputed global centre for lagoon expertise and manufacturing. How often does an opportunity like this come along? For 30p on our bills, we can make all this talk of a knowledge economy mean something, by growing manufacturing for the world here in the UK.

It’s not just about the development phase. We could be leading the world in research and development, not just in a more efficient design but in materials, giving our steelworks new life and direction, in energy storage, in transmission methods, in flood protection. If we want a USP for our new trade deals, well here it is. Looking forward, thinking forward, spending forward—not on a lagoon, but on a new industrial future for Britain.

When CERN was set up, it didn’t foresee that its work would save lives through proton beam therapy, and that it would revolutionise data transfer. Its partners just knew that they were the first, and being first means driving change. Four hundred years ago—a little bit more recently than St David, I’m afraid—Hans Lippershey invented the Dutch perspective glass, a device for seeing things far away as if they were nearby. He took some existing technology, a glass lens, and did something moderately interesting with it. He didn’t treat it as a first; he didn’t see the potential of what he had. Galileo, on the other hand, wasn’t content to see things far away as if they were nearby. He took his version of the Dutch perspective glass and showed the Venetian Senate that his telescope gave them something unique: access to the stars. It made him a rich man and made all of us richer, as the Hubble telescope, just like CERN, has helped us understand our universe. We shouldn’t look at tidal lagoons as things far away as if they were nearby. We also need to look up and see the global opportunity for Wales and for Britain.

I want to put the tidal lagoon in the broader context of Wales’s blue economy, but, before I do that, I think it’s worth noting that Charles Hendry’s backing for the lagoon in Swansea bay has not only been widely welcomed in this Chamber but also, speaking personally, by my constituents and also by businesses across the supply chain and potential supply chain of the region. I believe that the lagoon has captured the imagination because, as David Melding was alluding to earlier, modern Wales was built on energy, and clean tidal energy technology could be Wales's next big industry. And let's not underestimate, either, the effect of a 100-year economic commitment on the regional economy of Swansea bay. This could be a catalyst for major economic development in sectors that could support lagoon technology and construction.

Wales is a tidal nation, and one of our major assets is our long coastline and a high tidal reach that few other countries can match. So, it makes good sense for us to focus on developing sectors of our economy where we can offer something that most other countries can't, and sectors that don't depend on our ongoing membership of the European Union, and making sustainable—and I emphasise ‘sustainable’—use of our natural resources make sense. Indeed, it gives us a competitive advantage. Countries that don't have our coast and don't have our tides can't develop that advantage. But let's not rest on our laurels. There are certainly enough other countries with similar natural assets to pose a competitive threat, and our competitors are not going to hang around while Wales develops the upper hand in this sector. So, we need fast action from the UK Government, and we also need swift action from Natural Resources Wales, to grant marine licences and to avoid further delays. If these steps are not taken promptly, we will lose our first-mover advantage to some other location, and a golden opportunity may be lost, and that would be unforgivable.

Like other Members, I've had representations from local anglers with genuine concerns, with which I sympathise, about the effects on fish stocks, though the actual detail is disputed, as we know. But, what's not disputed—

Will you give way?

I'll take the intervention.

I thank the Member for giving way. I, too, have had representations from the anglers, the Afan anglers in particular, and I think it's important that we now quickly get a resolution between NRW and Tidal Lagoon Power so that we can ensure the disparity between the two, which is quite huge at the moment, actually becomes more realistic, because I understand that both are, admittedly, at the extremes of their calculations and there needs to be a fairer balance in the middle somewhere, and we need to get that done quickly.

I would echo that; I think that we need fast progress on that. But what isn’t disputed is that climate change is one of the biggest threats to marine biodiversity in any event. So, I think that's the broader context for that discussion.

But the lagoon is a manifestation of a much broader opportunity, which is to turn Wales’s most abundant natural resource into an economic asset and to grow our blue economy. The Welsh Government will be consulting, as the Cabinet Secretary said, on a new marine plan this year, and I would like to see that plan signal a full commitment to this sector, in all its guises—we’re talking about marine today, but there's also sport, aquaculture and other opportunities, £2.1 billion-worth of economic value and tens of thousands of jobs before we start making any real headway in the area of renewables. But we need to grasp this chance.

I would like to see an ambitious marketing strategy showcasing this sector to the world, and we could start by hosting an international summit of potential purchasers of lagoon technology in the Swansea bay area. I would like to see stretching but deliverable targets from energy from offshore and marine renewables over a realistic time frame. I'd like to see the new national infrastructure commission being tasked with an early assessment of the infrastructure needs of the blue economy. And to echo the point that Lee Waters was making, we need a fast, transparent and fit-for-purpose consenting regime. There is evidence, which came through the consultation the Welsh Government conducted at the end of last year into the fees and charges, that there are concerns around timescales being a major, potential cause of competitive disadvantage. So, certainty and transparency in this area are vital.

I also want to see the Welsh Government pressing the UK Government to make good on any shortfall in EU funding for the marine sector as a result of leaving the EU, and to make sure that the Brexit process does not involve any reversal of the Welsh Government’s devolved competences in marine policy. The tidal lagoon—indeed, the blue economy—is a major opportunity for Wales. So, let's not miss the boat.

I was pleased to see today that there was a letter I think MPs at Westminster organised. Richard Graham, the MP for Gloucester, and 107 MPs signed that, and, I think most usefully, Jesse Norman, who’s the junior Minister responsible, has said there won’t be any foot dragging from the UK Government in responding to Charles Hendry’s report. Last summer, I was asked by Charles Hendry’s office whether I could arrange a meeting of AMs to discuss with him the work that he was doing. I was really struck by the number of people who came, the enthusiasm for his work, and then again when that report was published, just the welcome for how strong and unambiguous he was in his recommendation.

When I first thought some years ago about this project. it was, I think, an earlier stage, when it had been suggested that the cost of the energy would be £168 per MWh, and compared on the basis it was, which was a relatively short contract for difference, it appeared to be very expensive compared to other options, including nuclear and offshore wind. I’ve been convinced that it’s now been assessed on a fairer and more sensible basis over a longer time frame, and also lower long-term interest rates make the investment relatively more attractive. When you look at where it’s being funded from, to the extent that we have a levy control framework at a UK level—£9.8 billion equivalent by 2020 is the fixed envelope for that—it strikes me as sensible to spend more of that money on a diverse range of energy possibilities, some of which may work out and become very successful over the longer term. We’ve seen the very big decline in solar prices; we haven’t seen as large a decline in wind energy prices. I suspect that money could be better spent by at least funding an alternative technology option that may potentially deliver strong results over the longer term, and clearly has a significant option value in it given the uncertainties of all these things. Compared to nuclear and offshore wind, to the extent that it compares well now even on the projections in cost terms, I think it’s more attractive because of that greater variety and diversity for what’s clearly a non-polluting and reliable energy source.

Further, there’s just no doubt that this would be great for Wales. That levy control framework is on a UK basis, and I think that Simon Thomas spoke very rightly and I think generously drew attention to the fact that this would be Wales benefiting from the UK framework. I think to an extent this Assembly can come together and, I believe, with unanimity support this motion and this project, as well as the technical and option value descriptions I’ve given. Clearly, there would be an awful lot of money, whether from the UK taxpayer, or more generally from the UK electricity bill payer, that would be coming and being invested in Wales, and helping us at least potentially to develop this as an industry for the future. So, I’d very much welcome that.

Just to follow up on some of Lee Waters’s points earlier about Natural Resources Wales, I don’t think it’s fair for us to criticise NRW too strongly. They are doing what has been set out for them under legislation, and when we pass legislation that delegates authority to arm’s-length bodies, then we shouldn’t be surprised when they do what they’re asked under the statutes as we’ve set out. Welsh Ministers have delegated their powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to NRW, and it’s for NRW to take a licence decision when we deposit any substance or object in the sea or on or under the sea bed. It’s for them to determine, and we’ve set out ways in which that should happen—the need to protect the environment, the need to protect human health, and the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the seas. It’s important they consider the things they’ve been asked to.

I think it’s unfortunate we don’t have the call-in process in Wales that’s available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and also that it wasn’t possible to deem a licence as part of the planning DCA process. So, I would just ask, perhaps not immediately, but following a UK decision, and particularly if the report is approved, whether Welsh Ministers would give consideration to using the power I described earlier to Lee Waters to direct NRW, or perhaps to lay down a time frame in which they have to deal with some of these difficult issues about fish modelling, and actually come to a view in a way that wouldn’t delay the overall project. Then, if NRW did, for whatever reasons, or the narrow issues it might be looking at, if it weren’t to determine it favourably, then there would be the right of appeal to Welsh Ministers. I understand entirely why Welsh Ministers, in the terms of the motion and what they say to us in the Assembly today, will not want to say anything that could potentially lead to an adverse judicial review in future. But I’d like to add my own support to what I think is a very broad support in the Assembly for the Hendry review and for this as a future energy of great potential benefit to Wales.

We take electricity for granted. We switch our computer, our television, our lights or other electrical devices on and we expect them to work. The electricity has to be generated and available when we need it. Traditionally, electricity has been generated by burning fossil fuels. All fossil fuels are carbon based. When carbon burns, it forms carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This causes global warming.

The Paris agreement is driving the international decarbonisation agenda with some rapid developments in renewables and demand reduction. Alternatives to the burning of coal, gas, oil and wood are needed. This leaves nuclear power, onshore and offshore wind, solar power, river flow, geothermal and tidal power. The advantage of tidal power is that it is reliable. Tides can be predicted for centuries into the future. We know that the Bristol channel is ideally suited to generate tidal power. The Hendry review has been unambiguous in its support for a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay.

The first question to ask is: does the science work? We know that unidirectional turbines work—they’re on rivers. In Dinorwig in north Wales, unidirectional turbines driven by water are used. Water is stored at high altitude in Marchlyn Mawr reservoir and discharged into Llyn Peris to move the turbine during times of peak electricity demand. It is pumped back from Llyn Peris to Marchlyn Mawr during off peak. It uses more electricity to pump the water up than it generates on the way down. Pumping is done at periods of low demand.

The only difference with a tidal lagoon is that the turbines are bidirectional on a tidal lagoon, which means we get it four times a day. Once when the tide comes in, once when the tide goes out, once when the tide comes in again, once when the tide goes out again. We know that’s going to happen and it doesn’t cost us any energy. It’s not like pumping it up a hill and then it coming down again. It’s not cutting edge, it can be created, it can be predicted, and it is reliable over long periods of time.

Whilst fossil fuel plants and nuclear power stations need decommissioning and removing, as Darren Millar said earlier, all a tidal lagoon does is leave you with a sea defence. So, even if you don’t like it, and it comes to an end, it gives you a sea defence. With global warming, we expect sea levels to rise. So, it’s a win-win situation.

The only questions still to be resolved are how will we ensure the safe passage of fish either through the turbines or around them and gain a marine license from Natural Resources Wales? In December 2016, Natural Resources Wales revealed, on its best evidence, the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea bay could have a major added effect on migratory fish due to injury as they pass through the turbines. After a lengthy consultation, NRW estimated that up to 21 per cent of salmon and 25 per cent of sea trout, which are fish of a national importance, could be killed every year as they migrate to and from local rivers, mainly the Tawe, the Neath and the Afan. The estimates are far higher than the numbers provided by Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay) plc, which comes up with a number roughly a tenth of that.

Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay) has consistently stated that the impact on fisheries would be minor. We know we’ve got turbines on rivers. How does it work on rivers? You’ve got fish in rivers. In the Mississippi, you’ve got 129 different fish species in it. You’ve got a renewable energy developer, the Free Flow Power Corporation, which successfully operates the first full-scale hydrokinetic turbine generator in the Mississippi river, and has been doing so since 2011. We know the Mississippi is not fish free. So, how has it been achieved without severely depleting fish numbers?

What we need is a tidal lagoon with a means of safe movement for the fish that will lead us to creating sustainable energy, allowing Swansea—[Interruption.] Certainly.

Thank you for giving way, but do you recognise that actually there are many dams and other buildings that have fish passes within them to actually allow the safe movement of fish up and down in ways like that? This is slightly different because these are turbines that attract fish in through the wave and tidal movements. So, it’s not quite the same picture.

I think it is actually on rivers because the fish are moving up and down the river and, to get up and down the river, they have to go through the area where the turbines are. Whether they’ve got a fish pass or whatever they’ve got for it—. I think that, if we need fish passes, they need to get fish passes built into the tidal lagoon. But, technically, I don’t think that it is very different. I don’t think it’s very different moving up and down a river, compared to moving up and down a lagoon.

I end with a quote from the Hendry review:

‘We can either stand back and watch other countries take the lead(or watch a resource left permanently unused) or we can decide that we should do what the UK has done so well in the past—spotting an opportunity, developing the technology and creating an industry. As Britain moves into a post-Brexit world, we need to ask if we want to be leaders or followers.’

We, in UKIP, are in favour of tidal lagoons and recognise that the technology has the potential to supply a lot of the UK’s energy needs, reduce our carbon emissions and, most importantly, provide energy security and diversification. I did, however, have many questions about how the schemes would be funded and how local communities and the local economy would benefit from the construction and operation of these lagoons. The work undertaken by Charles Hendry and his team has reassured me that we can achieve a strike price that is not only fair to bill payers and taxpayers, but also represents a good deal for the UK and the developers. The Hendry review has highlighted the potential of the UK to become a world leader in this technology and develop a UK supply chain for future tidal lagoons. It is imperative that the UK and Welsh Governments, together with Tidal Lagoon Power, ensure that that happens. But I believe we should go further: Swansea and my region are to be the pathfinders for this technology and should therefore enjoy the most benefit from the initial scheme.

According to Tidal Lagoon Power’s own documentation, the Swansea lagoon’s construction will require 100,000 tonnes of steel. They state that the majority will be sourced from the UK; however they have appointed Andritz Hydro as their major development partner. Andritz Hydro is part of the Andritz group, which includes Andritz Metals who manufacture steel products in France, Germany and the Netherlands. We need to have a cast-iron guarantee, if you’ll excuse the pun, that the majority of the steel for the Swansea project will be sourced from Port Talbot. We have a steelworks right on the doorstep of the project, so why should the steel be shipped in from elsewhere in the UK or Europe? Tidal Lagoon Power also state that 5 million tonnes of rock will be needed for the project. They state that one of their major shareholders has purchased a quarry in Cornwall, so yet again Wales is not benefiting. South Wales West has been supplying energy to the rest of the UK since the industrial revolution in the form of coal, then wind power and now tidal energy. We should be one of the richest regions in the UK, as opposed to one of the poorest. Is it too much to ask that my region enjoys the biggest benefit from this tidal revolution? I hope the Welsh Government can get assurances from the UK Government and Tidal Lagoon plc that Swansea, South Wales West and Wales as a whole will be the largest beneficiaries from these tidal lagoons.

There also remain serious questions about the impact on fisheries in and around the Swansea bay region. In its most recent update, Tidal Lagoon Power have stated that it has not yet been possible to reach agreement on the scale of likely fish impacts at Swansea bay. This needs to be resolved as soon as possible and I urge the Welsh Government to work with angling and fishing groups in Swansea bay to ensure their livelihoods are not affected by the tidal lagoon. Provided we can ensure that my region benefits from a tidal lagoon and we can guarantee no major environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the lagoon, I am happy to support it, along with my party, and we will be supporting this motion before us today. Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd.

I want to focus most of my remarks on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, but can I begin by congratulating Charles Hendry on his report? Too often, reviews of this type lose themselves in fudges and faffing, coming to no clear conclusions and adding to the fog and to the delay, but not this one. This is the very model of what a decent review should do. It’s carefully considered, it’s delivered with due deliberation but without undue delay, and with conclusions and recommendations that are straight and to the point: the Swansea tidal lagoon should definitely and promptly be supported by the UK Government as a pathfinder—as the pathfinder—to examine the potential and the challenges of a wider roll-out of tidal lagoons. It is, in Charles’s words, ‘a no-regrets policy’ for the Government, or as I and many others have said in more colloquial terms, it’s a no-brainer. But let me say right at the outset: there is no case for overriding the environmental considerations, come what may. They must be worked through to a satisfactory resolution. We cannot treat lightly the issues highlighted by those, including myself, who rightly put the utmost importance on the special and often unique habitats and species, the ecology and the hydrology of the local area of the Severn and of the Bristol channel itself.

If there is to be, as Charles has pointed out, a wider national programme of tidal lagoon development, it makes absolute sense that it should be accompanied by a proper strategic spatial and evidence-based approach to planning and assessment, or in the Cabinet Secretary’s words, a marine plan. And a national policy approach, of course—it’s sensible, it’s desirable, it’s even essential to go forward in that wider roll-out. And, of course, we need to look at how we deal with the protections of the highest order in the habitats directives as well as the water framework directive, and whether derogations are necessary, desirable or even possible. Much more needs to be examined on that wider roll-out.

But we also look at the other aspects: the flood risks, the flood protections, the habitat change and the displacement, the loss of intertidal habitat and the impacts on valued migratory species, on water quality and fisheries issues, and hydrodynamic and morphodynamic changes to the physical environment, and so much more in the wider roll-out. For a wider programme and a wider roll-out, all of this has got to be considered, and I’m keen to play my part in scrutinising such a roll-out.

But for the Swansea lagoon, described in the Hendry review as the pathfinder, there are just three remaining locks. And I hope that with goodwill, as well as due diligence on all sides, these three locks can be unpicked simultaneously and satisfactorily, and soon. The first two are the marine licence and the development consent order, which are two separate processes in Wales, unlike England, but that can be done in tandem. So, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary for assurances that this will be the case, and we do not have to wait for sequential stages that will add to the delay. And the outstanding issue for the marine licence is that of the impact on fish, and the inability of the company, yet, to satisfy the NRW permitting service. So, after much work, we do understand from NRW in their briefing that—and I quote—‘a more detailed submission to the permitting service will be made by the applicant in due course, and to support the development of a submission, CEFAS and NRW’s technical experts have agreed to provide additional advice. This work is ongoing and once this work is concluded, a submission must then be made by TLSB, the lagoon, to the permitting service for the review.’ They go on: ‘A subsequent consultation must then take place to inform the technical assessments that the permitting service is legally required to undertake. Only once all the legislative requirements are satisfied can a decision on the marine licence be made.’ Meanwhile: ‘We also understand the development consent order has 42 requirements for the conditions of the permit, which will need to be discharged by the local planning authorities—LPAs—before construction works could commence. Of these, NRW is a statutory consultee on 15.’

Now, these matters have to be carried out assiduously and properly, but we can also do this with due diligence and without due delay. I strongly urge both Cabinet Secretaries to work together on this matter—and with their officials; bring them together, bring NRW together—and to encourage and cajole and demand that NRW and LPAs and all involved make the rapid resolution of these issues a top priority.

Assuming that the Crown Estate will want to see the pathfinder proceed, it leaves us with the third and final lock, the keys to which are held by the UK Government in the form of financial support through the contract for difference, or what is commonly called the strike price. A cross-party show of unified support here today, added to the wider support from the business community, the higher education community, the sustainable energy sector and others, including that letter of over 100 cross-party MPs today, may just oil the lock and allow the key to turn a little easier and a lot sooner.

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this motion today. Tidal lagoons offer us the opportunity to develop a clean, modern, long-term energy policy that is safe and sustainable, with projected life spans of at least 120 years. That’s 120 years of clean and green energy generation, with the calculation that a network of tidal lagoons around the coast could produce enough electricity to meet a projected 8 per cent of the UK’s energy needs. Importantly, the development of tidal lagoons allows us to develop a new industry here in the UK, which will bring with it the prospect for wider economic regeneration, and here in Wales we can take a real global lead.

I know that the Industrial Communities Alliance have endorsed the plans from this perspective, and it is clear to see why when the potential scale of the benefits is considered. If the plans are to be fully realised, we could be looking at a network of six tidal lagoons, estimated to involve a £40 billion investment, creating nearly 6,500 long-term jobs and annually generating nearly £3 billion of GVA. But the economic benefits would not end there. Additional work and economic opportunities would be created during the construction of the tidal lagoons, with the supply chain, as other speakers have alluded to today, across the four proposed lagoons in Wales being estimated to involve many thousands of jobs, including tens of thousands in construction and manufacturing.

And this is where constituencies such as my own, in the former south Wales Valleys, can really stand to benefit. Plans for tidal lagoons in Swansea and eventually in Cardiff and Newport could create new work opportunities within easy commuting distance, but within the supply chain there are also opportunities for new and existing businesses in areas such as Cynon Valley. I would hope that sharing out these wider economic benefits is a key consideration within any future plan, and also that they form part of a new, refreshed strategy for sustaining and creating good quality employment opportunities in the manufacturing sector.

Again, there are specific opportunities for Wales here: 11.6 per cent of Welsh people are employed in manufacturing, the joint second highest level in the UK. As evidence from 2015 that was given to the cross-party group on industrial communities shows, these jobs are largely located in the Valleys, with my constituency having two and a half times the UK average of jobs in manufacturing. As the motion states, we should look to extract the maximum economic benefit from the proposed Swansea bay tidal lagoon and its associated technologies, but I would hope this benefit is equitably shared across Wales and is used as a lever to improve economic performance in areas such as mine.

For my final point, though, I will sound a note of caution. Three months ago here in this Chamber we discussed the most recent ‘State of Nature’ report from the RSPB. The report told us that 34 per cent of marine vertebrate and 38 per cent of marine plant species have declined according to long-term data trends. For marine invertebrates, the long-term decline was even more worrying, with three out of four species affected. This evidence highlights the fragility of our marine ecosystems, and means that we must be sensitive in how we approach this issue.

I welcome the Welsh Government’s approach, wanting to marry all aspects of its marine policy in a national marine plan that balances the economic potential of Welsh waters with our duty to safeguard and protect them, and I look forward to seeing the detail of this when it’s published in due course.

The proposal from the Hendry review, with its call for the development of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon as a pathfinder project, will allow us to evaluate the technology and cost-effectiveness of the project. Importantly, such an approach would also allow us to study the impact of a tidal lagoon on its natural habitat and on the species living within it, going some way to meet the valid concerns of environmental groups.

The tidal lagoon project has the opportunity to change the way we generate energy. It has the opportunity to transform, energise and re-balance our economy, and with the opportunity presented by using the Swansea bay tidal lagoon as a pathfinder, we have the chance to get this right. I hope the Welsh consensus behind this debate today provides the catalyst so that the UK Government can now move the project forward. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to reply to the debate—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I begin by thanking Members for their very constructive contributions to this important debate today? It’s rare that we have agreement right across the Chamber over the principles of many energy projects, given the contentious nature of onshore wind and nuclear energy, but I think on this issue there has been strong cross-party agreement. As my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs said during her opening of this debate, the Welsh Government very much welcomes the Hendry report, and I share the sentiments of others who see this as an exemplary inquiry and report. The process has been conducted in the greatest possible fashion by Charles Hendry.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

From an economic perspective, I see the huge potential ahead of us. I recognise how marine energy projects could be a catalyst to securing long-lasting legacy benefits for the economy, and I understand how they could provide the opportunity for jobs and investment in local and regional economies across Wales—those economies that many Members have touched on and represent. I also see how they could help our transition to a low-carbon economy. And I think it's vitally important to place Wales at the forefront of this exciting sector, to put Wales at the vanguard of new tidal technologies, subject, of course, to those projects receiving the necessary approvals.

Now, we are already supporting businesses to help Wales seize the opportunity to become a leader in tidal lagoon project development, to secure an enduring legacy in developing a sustainable industry for Wales for future generations. Now, an area of activity specifically identified in Charles Hendry's report concerns the Welsh projects already in progress, particularly the pathfinder project, and we agree with the approach set out in the report for a small-scale pathfinder project as soon as is reasonably possible, to understand the impacts of such developments. And we very much welcome Charles Hendry's observation of the very strong case for the proposed Swansea bay tidal lagoon to be that small-scale pathfinder project, as it’s currently the only project in an advanced state of preparation that is necessary to become a pathfinder in the near future. But it's clear that, before that project can proceed, a number of approvals and consents need to be secured. Those have been outlined by Members today and include the strike price, a marine licence, and also a sea bed lease from the Crown Estate. There is also the issue of end-of-life decommissioning, which is yet to be agreed between the company and the UK Government. My officials have been meeting with Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd on its proposed Swansea project for a number of years across a range of areas to ensure that Wales and Welsh businesses and the economies that we represent can gain maximum benefit from the project. Ultimately, the company estimates that its proposed fleet of tidal lagoons will contribute £27 billion to UK GDP, and £3 billion per annum once operational, and it will meet to up to 8 per cent of UK electricity demand.

Another area specifically highlighted in the Hendry report is a recognition of the integrated approach that we have taken on skills and supply chain development in support of this important sector. For example, we've invested in the skills demand and supply reports for the proposed Swansea bay lagoon development. We facilitated early engagement with key stakeholders, including, crucially, the skills partnerships and provided them with early access to labour market intelligence reports, which have allowed them to be aware of the skills needs of the project.

I want to make very clear that the Welsh Government's intention is to do everything that it can to capitalise on the opportunity ahead of us. Wales, as many Members have observed today, is a tidal country, and next year, we’ve designated it the Year of the Sea. We want Wales to be celebrated for its incredible coast, but also to be the global leader in marine energy projects. Whilst the UK Government considers the findings of the Hendry report, officials will continue regularly to engage with Tidal Lagoon Power and, indeed, other potential tidal lagoon developers to ensure that, should the project receive the necessary approvals and consents, Welsh businesses, and specifically the local economies of Wales, gain the maximum benefit for our country.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No? Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.