The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt, and amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be deselected.

The next item is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion. David Rowlands.

Motion NDM6297 David J. Rowlands

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Directs the Welsh Government to review its energy generation policies and environmental impact policy.

2. Notes that there is an aim of achieving a zero-carbon economy in Wales.

3. Believes that:

a) communities should have the final say over whether to approve solar farms in their locality;

b) mature woodland should not be cut down to build solar farms; and

c) the method of reducing residential, public sector and business energy usage should be supported by:

i) encouraging the installation of triple glazing in residential and other properties; and

ii) encouraging the installation of fuel-efficient boilers.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh Government has an outwardly laudable aim of reducing Wales’s carbon footprint by 80 per cent by the year 2050. UKIP broadly agrees with this objective; however, the strategies it employs to achieve these aims must be called into question. At the heart of this carbon-free initiative is the use of so-called clean electricity generation. To a very large extent, it seems this is to be achieved through the use of wind turbines and solar panels.

Could I—?

Of course.

Thank you. I thank David for giving way so very early in the debate, but I just wanted to clarify, at the outset of this debate, whether it is still UKIP’s national position to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 entirely and to ditch decarbonisation targets. Because that’s not in the spirit of what you just said, David.

Absolutely. It’s not, but we don’t come under the whip as do all other parties, as you know, and we can have our own policies within the Welsh Government if that’s what we feel we have to do—

Oh my goodness.

[Continues.]—as indeed do you on many other aspects when you disagree with your Government in—. No, I’m sorry, Huw; I have to carry on with this. I’m here to debate how we go about reducing carbon.

It is envisaged that this form of power generation will replace all forms of fossil fuel generation over the coming years. However, herein lies the fundamental flaw in the Welsh Government’s plan, because in order to achieve its objectives, this Government has to acknowledge that there will need to be a huge proliferation of windfarms and solar installations across the whole of the Welsh countryside. Large areas of stunningly beautiful Welsh landscape must be sacrificed to achieve this largely political objective, because we have to remember that Wales produces just 0.04 per cent of the total global carbon dioxide output.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

It is true that in order to mitigate against the potential negative impact of these installations on the countryside, the Welsh Government has instigated a set of guidelines for local government planning departments. But one phrase in these guidelines seems paramount if these guidelines are to be effective. It says that the planning authority should take note as to whether any development contributes to a significant cumulative impact on the surrounding environment. The video you’re about to see is, to a large extent, an aerial view of the developments around the previously rural village of Manmoel—a settlement that comes under the authority of Caerphilly County Borough Council. We’re running the video, please.

An audio-visual presentation was shown. The presentation can be accessed by following this link:

Audio-visual presentation.

I believe the video you’ve just seen begs the question: what exactly does constitute significant cumulative impact if this array of installations does not? I fear it shows that planning laws offer no protection to residents or communities such as Manmoel, and that any and every community in Wales is in danger of being enveloped by such projects. Further to this, there are many other aspects to this development that cast doubt on whether existing planning regulations are adequate in protecting not just Manmoel, but any similar community.

Over the Christmas period this year, and much to the horror of the local community, 200 trees—80 of which were mature oak and beech, each taking around about 50 to 100 years to reach full maturity—were illegally cut down. This, it would seem, to facilitate the installation of the solar array and aid its sun capture. Caerphilly council’s response to this outrageous act was not to attempt to identify and prosecute the perpetrators, but to consult with a development company where it was agreed the trees would be replaced by newly planted saplings. No doubt it is a great comfort to the residents of Manmoel and the surrounding area that they will only have to wait upwards of 100 years to have their environment restored.

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

I thank the Member for giving way. As a resident of the local community myself, I was outraged at the illegal felling that has taken place and is being investigated. But doesn’t he believe that the fact that it is illegal demonstrates that it isn’t the law that is the problem; it’s what we do once the law is broken that’s the problem, and just replacing 150 to 200-year-old beech trees and oak trees with saplings is unacceptable? There should be consequences for developers who are allegedly doing illegal acts like this.

I fully agree with Steffan on that matter, absolutely.

It would seem that it’s not only environmental regulations that offer no protection to such developments; those surrounding wildlife and archaeological impacts, as well as outdoor leisure facilities, do not either. We understand that only a cursory one-day-long study on the impact on the wildlife habitat of the area was carried out and, surprise, surprise, it concluded that there would be no significant impact on local wildlife. This, despite the local area being a breeding site for such endangered species as the skylark. The erection of a wind turbine close to a site that an archaeological expert called ‘of significant interest’ again shows there is little protection when these projects are considered. We can add to this environmental disaster the fact that the wind turbines and the solar arrays encroach within yards of the local amenity and beauty spot of Pen-y-fan pond. Little wonder then that the inhabitants of Manmoel and nearby Oakdale believe there is an ‘anything goes’ attitude to these developments.

If an environment can be despoiled by the illegal felling of trees, if wildlife habitat can be ignored, if sites of archaeological interest can be dismissed, and local outdoor amenities have no significance, it indicates a wild-west attitude to planning regulation where projects of this scale are being considered. What price to the people of Wales for this elimination of our carbon footprint, which, again, let us remind ourselves, amounts to just 0.04 per cent of the global total?

Thank you very much. I have selected the seven amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be deselected. I call on Jane Hutt to move formally amendment 1 tabled in her name.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the Welsh Government’s energy policy strategy Energy Wales.

2. Notes the legislative target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Wales by at least 80 per cent by 2050.

3. Recognises the planning system provides opportunities to both protect Wales’ unique landscape and also promote opportunities for renewable energy generation.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. I now call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Insert at end of point 1:

with the aim of achieving a 40 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 and a zero-carbon economy.’

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete point 2.

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

In sub-point 3(a) delete ‘the final’ and replace with ‘a’.

Amendment 5—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Insert at end of sub-point 3(a):

through their democratic local and national decision-making structures based on the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.’

Amendment 6—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete sub-point 3(b).

Amendment 7—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete sub-point 3(c) and replace with:

the method of reducing residential, public sector and business energy usage should be supported by strengthened building regulations for new buildings to be nearly zero energy and through a large-scale retrofitting programme for existing residential homes.’

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 moved.

I do so, Deputy Presiding Officer. And, though I’m always delighted to debate energy in the Assembly, as I believe that one of the most important things we can do as a nation is to chart our energy and low-carbon future, I have to say that I do not believe a word of what UKIP says on energy. I don’t believe they’re working towards a low-carbon or a zero-carbon future at all. The only UKIP Member who said anything remotely approaching a scientific approach to this has left the group and joined the sort of midway between the Conservatives and the not Conservatives, and they are left with people who simply don’t believe in science. David Rowlands, who’s just given us a passionate defence of his local environment, but only talks—when he last talked about energy, referred to a 1920s ‘The New York Times’ story about the weather in New York as a way of justifying what’s happening with climate change. So, let’s put it on the record: climate change is happening, it’s affecting our environment, it’s affecting scarce species, it will destroy the Welsh environment if we don’t do something about it, and the task is to do something about it in a way that’s responsible for ourselves as a nation, responsible globally—the fact that we produce a small amount of carbon dioxide emissions does not somehow excuse us from not playing a full global role as a modern technological nation, which, by the way, if we do it right, can also be at the forefront of creating jobs from this.

I’m not going to defend anything that cuts down mature beech trees illegally, and, as Steffan Lewis has already pointed out, that is already an illegal act and there should be consequences to that. But there’s a real conflict here—

David J. Rowlands rose—

I’ll just finish this point, if I may, and I will give way.

There’s a real conflict here. We’ve heard all day from UKIP today, because we’ve been debating local authorities, that there must be local referenda, local people must decide, and then they bring a motion to the Assembly that says you can’t build any solar panels whatsoever if it cuts down a mature tree. Well, that doesn’t actually allow local decision-making, and our amendments say very clearly we have in Wales a set of Acts—the well-being of future generations Act, which I know Steffan Lewis is a great fan of, but, more importantly, the environment Act—that give the context in which local decisions and local communities can come to a conclusion at a national level and implement them at a local level. Now, I think the proposer of the motion is seeking to intervene.

Yes, fine. First of all, obviously, the whole thrust of this debate is that there’s overdevelopment of a particular area. I noticed something you say that you’re so given to in Plaid that you want to look after the environment, et cetera, but I note you want to take point 3, subsection a), which is that we should not be denuding our forests in order to build these—you want to take that out.

We take that out because we’re putting something much better in. That’s what an amendment is. The thing that we’re putting that’s much better in is the reference to the well-being of future generations Act and the environment Act, because that’s the legal concept, that we now approach our community development and our whole-nation development. There’s no point making orders around individual trees and complaining about that if you’re not looking at the big picture—if I may put it, you can’t see the wood for the trees.

David Rowlands, in the past, has advocated; I’ve heard him advocate—he didn’t today, I’m afraid to say, but he’s advocated tidal lagoons. I’m a very strong supporter of moving ahead with the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. I think that should be a feature of this general election in Wales, and I think any party that doesn’t commit to moving ahead with that tidal lagoon does not deserve the vote of people in Wales. But let’s think about what the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay would be. It would be a pathfinder; that’s what the Hendry report says very clearly. It would then roll out to another tidal lagoon in Cardiff and, possibly, a third in the Severn estuary. That is cumulative development and needs to be handled with great care, of course it does. But why is it that windfarms are always singled out as being bad cumulative developments, a few solar panels are always bad as cumulative developments, and yet we can look at two new nuclear power stations, and, somehow, one at each end of Wales isn’t a cumulative development? I think there’s a little bit of a reality check that needs to happen here.

Plaid Cymru’s very clear, and our amendments set out very clearly, that we have a path that we can take that takes us towards, first of all, self-sufficiency in electricity generated through renewables by 2035, and, secondly, towards a zero-carbon future. I don’t think the Government’s amendments to this debate are ambitious enough. I’ll support them in as far as they go, but I want to see us go further, and that means we have to have a very clear plan that allows us to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 and the 80 per cent cut that the Government refers to by 2050. In delivering that, we also have to do it with social justice at heart, and that, for Plaid Cymru, also means establishing our own energy company in Wales that enables us to create the opportunity for distributed, individual grid developments, more attention to fuel poverty, and seeing more benefit for the people of Caerphilly or wherever they have an energy development on their doorstep—that that brings direct benefits to that community. The history in Wales is this: we developed the coal mines and we developed our industry in a way that completely trashed our communities. In meeting the challenge of climate change, we must ensure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past, but we must, at the same time, also ensure that the past energy of Wales does not hold back our energy development solution.

I’m very pleased to speak in this debate, and welcome the debate, as well, I have to say, and I’m going to try and respond to some very particular parts of the motion in front of us, but, before I start, I think I heard—. And I do understand that this is a debate on a UKIP motion, and I assume, as a UKIP motion, it represents UKIP policy. If I am unclear, I’m happy to take an intervention, but I am now assuming that UKIP Wales’s policy is to support decarbonisation. And I see Neil shaking his head vigorously. If that is the case, then what on earth is this motion about? Because it says it

‘Notes that there is an aim of achieving a zero-carbon economy in Wales.’

Ah, ‘notes’. Not ‘welcomes’, not ‘supports’, not ‘urges’; it ‘notes’. Contrary to the spirit of what we heard in David’s opening remarks—which I would welcome if that was what the UKIP policy seemed to suggest—it ‘notes’. It has clearly been worked through very carefully there. It doesn’t welcome but, in fact, the party policy is still that it opposes decarbonisation. And I’m looking for the nodding head from the party leader. Okay, and it seeks the repeal of the Climate Change Act 2008 introduced by Labour. Okay, so I think I’m clear on that now.

It says in here,

‘communities should have the final say over whether to approve solar farms’

They definitely should have a say, without a doubt, and they should have that say within the town and country planning process. They should have that say within the context of the environment Act and also the future generations and well-being Act as well. They should have a say, and, in fact, I’d like to see them have more of a say, not least in community ownership, as well, of renewables projects, whether they are wind or whether they are solar, and I think there is more to be done on that.

It mentions in the motion that mature woodland should not be cut down to build solar farms. I agree. Ideally that should be avoided, and particularly not just mature, but veteran woodland—very, very old woodland—should be avoided, and illegal felling, of course, should carry consequences. But this has to be within the context of decision making locally as well, and those local communities have to have their say within it. But I notice it isn’t just about—. Even though No. 1 says it

‘Directs the Welsh Government to review its energy generation policies’, it’s not just about energy generation. In fact, it talks about fuel-efficient boilers, installation of triple glazing, and all I would say is: those are worthy things to look at, but they’re by far short of anything like the right shopping list for what should be done within energy efficiency measures within retrofitting. And what we do need to do is avoid that style of picking ones that actually was one of the great downfalls of the Green Deal, the big UK flagship programme of the Green Deal, where, in effect, what we did have was salesmen going into houses and saying, ‘I’ll do this for you; I’ll do that for you’, not what’s right for the property and actually working through it as to what would give the greatest gain for the least output. So, there are some good ideas, but it’s not extensive enough.

Now, in the amendment brought forward, amendment No. 1, by my friend, the Assembly Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, it notes the Welsh Government’s energy policy strategy, ‘Energy Wales’, which David would like to see, I suspect, reviewed. I think it will be reviewed, because it’s been there for a few years now. It will be reviewed, and it will be reviewed, I suspect, in line with the smarter energy Wales policy brought forward by the predecessor committee of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. And so it should be, because, within that, it actually talked about localisation of energy generation. It talked about more community involvement and ownership of energy generation. So, at a point, it will be reviewed, but it will not be reviewed in order to walk away from decarbonisation targets or to walk away from renewables. And some of the renewables that are opposed by UKIP are, of course, the most cost-effective renewables as well. And it notes the target that we have of greenhouse gas emissions in Wales—a reduction by at least 80 per cent by 2050—and we know we have to do more. The outcome of the Paris agreement is that that is where we are now; we actually have to go further and we have to ratchet it up every single year, as we go forward.

So, contrary to what I understand is the UKIP position, we need to do more, go faster, and do it with urgency. As the climate change committee has said, there is a now a desperate urgency to actually go further. That does means that we need to turbo-charge energy efficiency, retrofitting, and I’ve argued before that it should be as part of national infrastructure, and I think the Government is listening to that here in Wales. We do need to ramp up energy efficiency standards in new homes and so much more as well. There is a lot more that we can do. So, I welcome this debate today, but the motion as it’s structured is only a partial motion. I will be supporting the Welsh Government’s amendment, while, at the same time, urging them to be even more ambitious. We are the party that delivered the Climate Change Act 2008. We here in Wales can do even more.

I’m pleased to shed a little light on things that have been said already in this debate today. I didn’t want this debate to be turned into an argument about global warming in itself. It was supposed to be about how you respond to that, regardless of what you believe is happening in the wider world. But I will say this in response to something that Simon Thomas said earlier on: if we just look at the facts that we know, as opposed to projections, which are speculative, the temperature rose by 0.5 degrees between 1975 and 1998. There’s been virtually no change in global temperatures since 1998. And yet the change between 1975 and 1998 was less than occurred between 1910 and 1940, before theories of global warming had ever been thought about, and in the years when carbon emissions were far greater than they are today. So, the argument is far from settled as to whether the scientific base of these arguments—

Will the Member give way?

Well, I would rather not, because I want to develop this argument on another point, and there will be plenty of other opportunities, I’m sure, for us to spar on this point. But, regardless of what one believes is happening in climate change, our argument is that the costs imposed by the Climate Change Act are disproportionately great for this country to bear in the context of what’s happening in the rest of the world. Now, our policy on global warming was written by Mark Reckless. He wrote our manifesto, on which we all stood last May. So, I don’t know whether we’re going to have a Damascene conversion revealed to us this afternoon, but we’ll wait and see. But the whole point is—[Interruption.] Well, the honourable Member can make his speech in due course. Because we only have four minutes, I just want to make—[Interruption.] I want to make—[Inaudible.]—simple point that this country, and I mean Wales in particular, is paying a disproportionate price for the policies that are being imposed on us.

Wales actually produces not 0.5 per cent of global emissions, but 0.05 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. The United Kingdom, altogether, produces about 1.16 per cent. China produces 30 per cent; the United States 15 per cent; India 7 per cent. Far from what Huw Irranca-Davies was saying about world agreements to reduce carbon emissions, China and India propose massive increases in their output of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years. China is going to double the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted, and India is going to treble what they currently emit, because their economies are going to grow, and, under the Paris climate accord, there is a specific let-out clause for them to permit that. So, even though this is legally binding, what is legally binding permits them actually to increase their global emissions by many, many times what we would save if we closed down the entire British economy. [Interruption.] I just want to make one quotation, and then I will give way to Rhianon Passmore. Article 4.7 of the Paris accord says:

‘The extent to which developing country parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will…take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country parties’ and quite rightly too. Of course, these countries, very often desperately poor, if they are to develop, are inevitably going to increase emissions of carbon dioxide. As the world population expands, that is bound to produce this effect. I give way to the Member.

Thank you very much. Just a small intervention, I think: in regard to the apparent conflict and confusion that there is on your policy around decarbonisation, can you clarify if UKIP is in favour of fracking and if that is your party policy in Wales?

I personally have no objection to fracking in principle. It is actually a low-carbon way of producing power. But, of course, there are fears in local communities about the disruption caused, and those must be taken fully into account, in the same way as we are saying in this motion about the objections of people in communities like Manmoel—an area that I know, because, in my very early years, my grandparents lived nearby and I lived with them. These vast arrays of solar panels—we see them all around the country as we travel around on motorways—they are springing up as the most profitable crop that farmers can grow.

We had a debate from Plaid Cymru not long ago about pylons and power lines being buried underground, and I put the point there that is there not a contradiction between their policy on pylons and power lines, which we fully support in UKIP on the one hand—and yet they are not worried about desecrating the hills of mid Wales and elsewhere with great forests of windmills? So, what I’m suggesting here is that, for almost no diminution in global emissions of carbon dioxide, we’re being asked to pay a vast price. Even in the climate change Act cost assessment in 2008, it was stated to be £720 billion—that’s six years’ expenditure on the national health service. And so, to expect an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is going to impose a massive cost on particularly the poor and the disadvantaged in countries like Wales—and we are one of the poorest parts of Western Europe. So, it's on that basis alone that we say this policy is not in the interests of the Welsh people.

I think, like many Members in the Assembly today, I’ve found UKIP’s position here a rather strange one. It is a sort of mix of damning with faint praise or distorting the picture rather dramatically. They can’t quite agree as to whether the Welsh contribution to emissions is 0.04 per cent or 0.005 per cent. But, of course, the real issue is that, in terms of what our emissions are, they are higher than the UK average because of our steel industry. They are higher than the European average, and we have to do our bit here as part of a co-ordinated international response, which of course we signed up to. We do our bit, expecting our partners around the world to do their bit. But, obviously, this is not the approach that UKIP takes. And I have to say that the amount of carbon that’s gone into the atmosphere since the second world war and the age of oil and, it has to be said, through globalisation spreading economic prosperity, is far vaster than in the period between 1910 and 1940. So, you know, I think we do need to root ourselves in some fairly solid facts.

But, you know, there's a whole issue here—which is important—about the visual effect on our environment of any new development. But I have to say, you know, the age of heavy industry in terms of the disfigurement that created is out-of-mind greater than what we now have with renewable sources of energy. That doesn't mean to say we should be casual about where they are deployed and that we should not take into account their impact on the environment.

David, will give way on that? Thank you for giving way. I note as well—and I’m looking towards Neil as well for clarification on this, perhaps visually, as he nods or shakes his head—but it is my understanding as well that it is still UKIP’s national UK policy to support coal as part of the solution going forward. And I’m really interested, in the opposition that there is to wind and to solar, as to which pits in my constituency will be reopened. Coegnant pit or Wyndham colliery in the middle of Maesteg? Which ones? Or, which opencasts are going to be opened or extended in my constituency? Because if coal is part of the solution, that's what’s going to happen.

I do agree with the point that the Member makes in terms of the likely impact on the environment of a return to coal being really massive.

It is important that we have a general consensus in this Assembly—which I’m pleased to say the Welsh Government has put into effect in terms of public policy—of developing a low carbon economy. This is the right thing to do, and we don’t want a mixed message.

And, you know, Wales was probably the greatest energy economy of the nineteenth century. We still in many ways are paying the price of that, because of the very narrow range of our economic base. But we now have the opportunity to be a world leader in terms of its replacement with renewable technologies that take us away from the massive infrastructure and centralisation of carbon-based energy forms to offering empowerment to local communities when they’re properly involved. That’s the message that we should be sending out—that it is a route to localism and empowerment in terms of developing local economies.

I have to say that there are some things that are hinted at, at least, in UKIP’s flawed motion that we agree with. We do believe in localism and the right, in most cases, for local authorities to make decisions that have an impact on their local communities and don’t overspill into obviously national matters. Then I do think it’s the local authority that should lead, and here I have to say that the Welsh Government has moved in the opposite direction to that that we now see in England in terms of the ability of local authorities here to dispose of energy applications. In England they have much more scope to deal with schemes up to 50 MW whereas here it is only up to 10 MW, and that is not a good development in our view.

I also have to say we need to define what mature woodland is. I don’t want to get too pedantic, but the current wording would capture, in my view, commercial woodland. A mature pine forest that is farmed—under the current wording, that would be deemed not permissible. However, there is an underlying point, which is something I do want to emphasise, and that is that ancient woodlands in particular should not be removed, and that, I think, is very important, really, for future generations.

There are a couple of other things. Simply praising the use of triple glazing in quite such a sweeping way—there are some that have urged caution in this area, though it is useful in many cases. The Energy Saving Trust does not take the sort of view that UKIP is proposing this afternoon.

But I do think it’s important for us to see the opportunities for Wales here. If I can end on a point of agreement with UKIP, the involvement of local communities is important, but we want that to be a full and proper and empowered involvement, and chasing after some particular stories is perhaps not the way to proceed.

I do rise in this debate to speak on one particular matter, but an important one that has been referenced by others. The UKIP motion states, and I quote, that

‘mature woodland should not be cut down to build solar farms’ and I for one am very pleased that this time they have discovered an environmental mandate and an eco-soul. I welcome that.

But, Llywydd, it is self-evident, as UKIP knows, that our mature and protected woodland should not be cut down to build solar farms. This would be a clear breach of regulation protections, and it is absolutely appalling that, in my constituency, 200 very mature trees were illegally felled near Blackwood at Pen-y-fan pond. This illegal action has rightly outraged our communities and environmentalists, and a petition of over 1,000 has already been collated. I urge those who do care to sign that. Indeed, Jim Hepburn, the national regulatory woodland manager at Natural Resources Wales stated in the strongest possible terms, and I quote:

‘this is a devastating case which will have a terrible impact on the local environment and no doubt be very upsetting for local people’.

I’ve both met with the local authority and with Mr Hepburn at the National Assembly, and I’ve also been on site to view for myself the dreadful devastation wrought by the illegal felling of these trees in breach of all permissions and regulation. It is an illegal action. Natural Resources Wales are currently investigating this illegal tree felling where over 200 very mature hedgerow beech trees have been illegally cut down. It is a crime, so I call for the strongest possible actions to be taken to prosecute.

However, it is equally important that Natural Resources Wales are allowed to fully investigate and then present their findings with their recommendations for appropriate courses of actions to follow. All serious parties know that actions of this kind witnessed at Pen-y-fan pond require a licence, but Natural Resources Wales say that none has been given. Natural Resources Wales has also made it explicitly clear that it would take, and I quote,

‘the necessary action against those responsible’.

So, sadly I predict that it must be election time; rather than wait for Natural Resources Wales to report, David Rowlands has taken to grandstanding and political stunts, something that his party is actually very good at. David Rowlands has arranged for a drone, as we have just seen, to record this aerial view way after the event—a drone—despite full investigation and recording of such a breach.

So, maybe it would have been wiser to have sent this drone to locate the UKIP local election candidates. Out of 1,254 county council seats tomorrow, UKIP are fielding candidates to contest a mere 80 of them. On the BBC Wales website on 5 April, David Rowlands was quoted as explaining this by saying UKIP was planning to appoint a regional organiser but added that changes were still up in the air and that’s why they weren’t as well organised as they might have been for the council elections. ‘Up in the air’ and ‘disorganised’ are apt words to describe UKIP.

Let nobody be in any doubt that those responsible for this highly illegal felling will be identified and action will be taken by the appropriate authorities. On the Welsh Government’s woodland estate, no mature woodland has been cleared for solar farm development, because this is illegal felling. It now needs appropriate agencies to do their job on Islwyn’s Pen-y-fan pond. We await that report and the findings of the Natural Resources Wales report.

The directly elected constituency Assembly Member is myself and I have made explicit my desire to see those responsible named, shamed and compensatory action sought. So, yes, I am grounded and resolute in the prosecution of these events. It is a very serious eco crime and I look forward to working usefully to pursue a constructive way forward.

Thank you very much. I now call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt, to reply.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to thank Members for their contributions in today’s debate. Last December, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs gave a statement setting out her priorities for the future of energy in Wales. She explained how this Government was committed to the ambitions set out in our energy policy document, ‘Energy Wales’. She also outlined her three priorities for this Assembly term: to increase the efficiency of energy use in Wales, to reduce our reliance on energy generated from fossil fuels, and to actively manage the transition to a low-carbon economy.

These priorities have not changed. Energy efficiency is key to our approach to decarbonisation and will feature strongly in our plan to deliver our carbon targets. The transition to a low-carbon economy brings with it opportunities around clean growth, quality jobs and global market advantages. It also has wider benefits for enhanced places to live and work, with clean air and water and improved health outcomes.

The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 puts in place legislation to enable Wales’s resources to be managed in a more proactive, sustainable and joined-up way. It recognises the vital role natural resources and their benefits provide to Wales’s well-being and prosperity. It places a duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure our net emissions are at least 80 per cent lower by 2050 than the baseline set in legislation. The Act sets the statutory framework for achieving this long-term goal through interim targets and carbon budgets between now and 2050. These interim targets and budgets will allow us to focus action, review progress and ensure we’re on track to meet our objectives.

In response to a Plaid Cymru debate last December, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs explained how our aim for at least an 80 per cent target reduction by 2050 is in line with wider UK and EU obligations. She also explained how Wales, along with the UK, is part of a leading group of countries taking legislative action to tackle climate change.

In practical terms, the Welsh Government is playing its part. The National Procurement Service is buying 100 per cent of renewable energy for its public sector partners, with approximately 50 per cent coming from Welsh sources, and has a goal to increase this to 100 per cent.

In terms of the support we provide, we’ll be continuing to develop our skills base here in Wales through practical and financial support. We’ve supported energy efficiency projects through our environmental protection scheme, which has helped carbon intensive businesses reduce their energy consumption patterns. One of those businesses is Celsa Manufacturing UK, the UK’s largest manufacturer of steel reinforcement products.

We need a mix of different technologies and sizes, from community scale to major projects. We have opportunities to host significant projects, as Simon Thomas referred to, such as the proposed Swansea bay tidal lagoon. We should seek to use Wales’s natural resources to decarbonise our electricity supply at lowest cost, whilst also stimulating significant investment in Welsh businesses and communities. Onshore wind and solar photovoltaics are already the lowest cost large-scale form of renewable energy, and are on course to be commercially viable without subsidy within just a few years. By investing in these technologies, we can limit the impact on energy bills from new generation. In fact, almost 70 per cent of Wales’s renewable energy comes from wind, and over 10 per cent from solar photovoltaics. We recently awarded Monmouthshire County Council £4.5 million funding through our green growth fund for the Oak Grove solar farm in Crick. This project could generate enough electricity to power around 1,400 homes, save over 2,000 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide and generate income of over £0.5 million for the local authority.

The UK Government’s feed-in tariff provides a real incentive for individuals, communities and businesses to benefit from renewable energy sources. However, the reduction in tariffs does mean that new projects now only stack up on the very best sites. We are therefore looking at how we can use our public sector buying power to de-risk investment and stimulate new projects. We’re supporting the development of three large onshore windfarms on the Welsh Government estate at Pen y Cymoedd, Brechfa Forest West and Clocaenog forest, and one of the key objectives of these developments is that there will be no net loss of woodland as a result of development, which is achieved by compensating planning.

As Simon Thomas and Huw Irranca-Davies have stated today in this debate, our planning regimes for these projects provide opportunities to protect both our unique landscape here in Wales, as well as promote opportunities for renewable energy generation. The cost of clearance is likely to mean that mature woodland would not be economic for solar photovoltaics. In fact, as Rhianon Passmore has said today, no mature woodland has been cleared for solar farm development, certainly in terms of the Welsh Government woodland estate, and the independent planning process would determine such a scenario. In terms of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, this is acknowledged and we support amendment 5. It does set the framework for the statutory planning consultation process, which allows members of the public the opportunity to present their views on any proposed renewable energy project.

In terms of energy usage in our homes and other properties, we’re strengthening our building regulations through our proposed part L review this year, as well as our energy efficiency policies. We’re already implementing a large-scale retrofitting programme of residential homes through our Warm Homes, Arbed and Nest programmes.

In her energy statement, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs set out our commitment to encouraging the deployment of low-carbon technologies to help in our transition to a low-carbon economy.

As far as amendments are concerned, we will be accepting amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, but are unable to accept amendment 2, because we are engaging with stakeholders over the summer to inform the process of developing targets to meet these important objectives and, clearly, engaging with Members on those developments.

But the final point that Neil Hamilton made—and perhaps he’ll expand on it, or David Rowlands in response to this debate—about the scientific evidence as regards climate change. Let’s make this very clear: climate change is happening and greenhouse gas emissions from man are extremely likely to be the dominant cause. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, and this is one of the most peer-reviewed processes in science. Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses are the highest in history, and I’m glad that we’ve had the opportunity to make that clear as well. [Interruption.] Yes, we can listen from the sidelines to him more in a minute, I’m sure, but let’s also recognise, as David Melding said, the importance of international action. Wales and other state and regional Governments have made a commitment to ambitious mitigation in the memorandum of understanding on subnational global climate leadership, which covers 33 countries and six continents, and collectively represents more than $27.5 trillion in gross domestic product, equivalent to 37 per cent of the global economy. We are proud in Wales that we’re actively working with international partners through networks like the Climate Group to raise the profile of the important role we can play and that can be played by state and regional Governments that are taking collective action around climate change, and I’m glad that, once again, we can outline our priorities, increase the efficiency of energy use in Wales, reduce our reliance on energy generated from fossil fuels and actively manage the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Thank you very much. I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. When I opened this debate, I said the Welsh Government’s aim for an 80 per cent carbon footprint reduction was a laudable objective. But I believe there are far better ways of achieving this objective. In a previous debate, Huw Irranca-Davies talked of cutting energy use as part of the strategy to reduce our carbon footprint. I believe this is a much more sustainable and cost-effective way to achieve the Government’s goal.

If every house in Wales were fitted with a modern, highly efficient gas boiler, and if triple glazing were installed in every house and instead of a huge arrays of solar panels blighting our countryside, they were placed on every dwelling, the effect on our energy consumption would be dramatic. All this should be funded by Government for every householder, not just those who qualify under the benefit schemes.

The public sector could play a huge part in this reduction by installing solar panels on every public building, estimated, if we include schools, to be in their thousands. The far more efficient micro-hydro schemes should be encouraged. Every Welsh river and many of their contributories are capable of sustaining these installations with little or no damage to the environment. We should take inspiration from the past where, prior to the advent of electricity, water mills powered most of the industrial revolution. I’m sad to hear, earlier in another debate, that these developments are going to be subject to a huge hike in their costs.

I want to return to Manmoel to end my contribution to this debate. The efficacy of the entire development at Manmoel is seriously put into question when we have evidence that a planning application has been submitted to Caerphilly council for the installation of 32 diesel generators to act as back-up to the wind turbines when they fail to produce the required amount of electricity to supply the grid, or, if you prefer, as they described in their application, for the provision of a flexible generation facility to provide energy balancing services via the capacity market for the National Grid. Each generator measures 15 m by 2.5 m and stands 6 m high. These are no small diesel units. These are significant diesel engines. It is estimated that if they run for just 200 hours, as estimated, they will consume 1 million litres of diesel each and every year they are in operation. The irony of the use of these diesel generators is that they are less than a mile from the acknowledged worst polluted town outside London—that of Crumlin. I urge the Welsh Government to radically change its policy, not to climate change objectives, but the strategies it employs to achieve them.

I want to just take up the points made by Rhianon Passmore as to whether I am bandstanding here this afternoon. Well, the truth of the matter is that that is not what I’m doing—[Interruption.] That is not what I’m doing. The people of Manmoel approached me because they could get no other local representative to take any note of what they were saying. So, that’s exactly why I’m here today.

Simon Thomas seems to have missed the whole ethos of this debate—that there is no protection against the size or locality of such developments. And Huw Irranca’s point about the local community being able to make some difference to this is obviously and patently not the case with regard to Manmoel. David Melding said something about a return to the disfigurement of the countryside. Well, that’s exactly what I’m saying we should not do in this debate. So, again, I urge the Welsh Government to radically change its policy, not to climate change objectives, but the strategy it employs to achieve them.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection]. Therefore, we’ll defer this voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I intend to turn to the vote. No. Okay, thank you.