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.