The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt.

Therefore, item 10 is the Plaid Cymru debate on a national energy company and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Motion NDM6318 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes Plaid Cymru’s Programme of Opposition and the commitment to establish a national energy company, Ynni Cymru.

2. Notes the research paper by Simon Thomas on proposals to create Ynni Cymru.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to establish Ynni Cymru, which will run as a not for dividend company at arms-length from Welsh Government, investing profits in improved client service and prices.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to investigate creating a network of local energy grids.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m pleased to move the motion in the name of Plaid Cymru, which puts forward evidence on the establishment of an independent energy company for Wales. In beginning the debate, I’d like to highlight the fact that we, as Plaid Cymru, have published a research paper on the issue and have used the Assembly’s research and communication policy fund. The paper is attached to the debate. I very much hope that Members of all parties will read the paper, to criticise it or to agree with it, or whatever. I think it is important that we use Assembly resources to build the evidence base for our debates and to disseminate information. If anyone wants a hard copy, I’d be more than happy to provide one to you.

It’s true to say that Plaid Cymru has always been in favour of an independent energy company for Wales, but the evidence for that has increased over the past few years. Perhaps the main shift in this area was the report of the environment committee in a previous Assembly that identified the opportunity for an energy company for Wales to do a great deal to close the gap in terms of fuel poverty, to invest in new forms of energy, particularly renewable and hydrogen, and also to identify opportunities to challenge the current trading climate in energy.

Underpinning the situation is that fundamental question: does the current energy market work for the everyday resident, does it work for business, and does it work in terms of long-term investment in the kind of energy industry that we want to see in Wales? Plaid Cymru is of the opinion that the answer to those three questions is, ‘No, the current system isn’t working’, and we need at least one more mover in the current system to make things more lively. That opinion is shared by the Labour Party—well, at least the Corbyn Labour Party, because that Labour Party has put in its manifesto for the general election on 8 June a call for an independent energy company in all regions. They use the word ‘region’—and I think Labour sees Wales as a region; it’s a nation for us, of course—but that’s why I was surprised to see that the Labour Party here had tabled an amendment watering down our requests and undermining what they are saying and what their own party is standing on in this election. But that is a matter for them to explain, and I’m sure that they will do so in due time.

There’s no doubt that the current market system is damaging Wales. Low-income households are, of course, particularly badly affected by high energy costs, and this is common to all parties now. The Labour Party proposed a cap on energy prices two years ago, and that was derided by the Conservative Party at the time, but now it’s the Conservatives who are proposing a cap on energy prices. But that is something that is a temporary fix; it’s not tackling the fundamental problem in the market. That’s what we’re proposing here—something long term that would actually intervene in that market.

Here in Wales, where 23 per cent of homes are believed to be in fuel poverty, and 3 per cent—which is quite a small percentage, but a large number—are in severe fuel poverty, paying more than 20 per cent of their income on energy costs. That puts you in a very difficult position indeed. What’s interesting is when you compare that with the rest of Britain, because only 11 per cent of homes in England are considered to be in fuel poverty.

Now, in the past, and possibly today as well, some may argue that moving towards renewable energy has increased prices, and that we are responsible, in a way, for arguing for an energy system that is less reliant on carbon because that will raise energy prices for our poorest customers. But what’s interesting is that energy prices in Wales are far higher than they are in the rest of the UK. But we produce less renewable energy than the rest of the UK, so the percentage of electricity produced by renewable sources in Wales at the moment is some 20 per cent; in Scotland, it is double that, over 42 per cent; in Northern Ireland, it is 26 per cent; and even in England, it is some 2 per cent higher than Wales. Therefore, there is no clear link between energy production using renewable sources and the price paid by customers. The market is far more complex than that and the fact is that we are storing up problems for the future as we continue with an energy distribution system that is very centralised, that isn’t distributed at a local level, is not devolved in that sense, and isn’t therefore appropriate for the kind of energy production that we will very soon see developing. One of those is something we’ve already discussed with the Cabinet Secretary—the shift towards vehicles of all kinds running on electricity, or certainly hydrogen, particularly in terms of transport.

The tidal lagoon is something we are very supportive of, and we’re disappointed that it isn’t being reflected in the UK manifesto of the Conservative Party, although it’s in the manifesto of all other parties. But developing a tidal lagoon, particularly developing tidal lagoons in north Wales and the Bristol channel, requires a more localised distribution centre where local people see more benefit from the investment made in renewable energy. Now, although more is to be devolved to Wales in terms of energy planning consents, up to 350 MW, it is true to say that the funding systems underpinning energy developments of all kinds will remain in London. In that context, too, the establishment of an energy company for Wales will be, in our opinion, of benefit.

So, what could such a company do? Well, broadly speaking, the report that we’ve commissioned looks at how a company could bulk buy, so buying energy on behalf of customers in Wales and passing on the savings in that context to those customers. We’re looking at how an energy company could be a vehicle to provide some of the other objectives of the Welsh Government, for example insulation, improving housing quality, energy efficiency and so on. We would use this company as a vehicle for those improvements, and the company could be an envelope for investment in renewable energy. I don’t think it’s broadly recognised that the Welsh Government is already investing, to be fair to it, in renewable energy. I think they have an investment in a solar farm in Monmouthshire somewhere—I think some millions of pounds were invested there. We’re also seeing a number of local communities coming together to invest locally—menter Awel Aman Tawe is a very good example of that, and I congratulate them on reaching their target of over £5 million just this week. But surely it would be better if a national company would co-ordinate these deals, and get better deals in the market, in the city, for investment, and in turn pass on those benefits to the customer.

Now, a national energy company could also lead research—[Interruption.]

Yn wir. Fe ildiaf, gwnaf.

Just to help you out with the geography of Monmouthshire here, there are some major solar farm developments—one just outside Llanvapley and one not far from Llancayo. Would you agree with me that, as good as those development are, it’s important that the local communities get the necessary benefits from those developments? Because in some cases, those communities haven’t been fully involved along the way and they’ve felt a bit isolated from the benefits that they rightly should get in law.

I agree with the general point that he’s making. I don’t know if those are the projects that the Welsh Government has also given support to. But I think the point that I’m making is that a more national infrastructure would be a way of delivering those benefits more directly to the local consumers. So, I think that point is that it’s something that’s frustrated many of us over many years who want to see these developments happening, but also are frustrated with the national infrastructure that holds the benefits at a very centralised level and doesn’t deliver them, even though the local people are actually seeing that development locally. I think bringing the two together is what a national energy company could, potentially, do in the Welsh context.

A gaf i jest gloi wrth agor y ddadl gan ddweud y byddwn i hefyd yn hoffi gweld yn bersonol, wrth gwrs, ac o ran Plaid Cymru, fod y cwmni yma’n cael ei ddatblygu naill ai ar ffurf gydweithredol neu yn sicr ar ffurf a oedd yn gallu cynnwys y cynghorau lleol neu ddatblygiadau ynni rhanbarthol? Mae’n dristwch imi ein bod ni wedi gweld mwy o ddatblygiad yn Lloegr o dan systemau datganoli Llywodraeth ganolog Lloegr, sydd wedi defnyddio’r Ddeddf ‘localism’ i ganiatáu, er enghraifft, i gwmni ynni ym Manceinion gael ei sefydlu a chwmni ynni yn Nottingham—Robin Hood Energy, sy’n gyfarwydd iawn inni. Rwy’n credu ein bod ni hefyd eisiau manteisio ar y cyfle yna ac rwy’n mawr obeithio os nad pob gair o’r cynnig yma, y bydd ysbryd y cynnig yn cael ei dderbyn gan y Cynulliad.

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

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the Welsh Government’s long-held commitment to:

a) use energy as efficiently as possible;

b) reduce reliance on energy generated from fossil fuels; and

c) actively manage the transition to a low carbon economy to deliver maximum benefits for Wales and protect the most vulnerable.

2. Recognises the contribution of Welsh Government-funded programmes, such as Warm Homes, Nest and Arbed, Local Energy, Green Growth Wales and the Smart Living programme in stimulating and supporting the early transition to a low carbon economy.

3. Recognises the Welsh Government’s role in supporting innovative energy generation, such as the community-led Bethesda local energy selling pilot, the mine water scheme in Bridgend and collaboration with industry and academia.

4. Notes the Welsh Government has held a series of public meetings across Wales to discuss proposals for an energy company for Wales.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Can I start by being polite and commending Plaid Cymru’s initiative in using the new flexibility in Assembly resources to commission research projects? Generally, I think it’s a good idea and, in fairness, you’ve put your ideas out and we can have an excellent debate, I’m sure, on this proposal. So, I think we need more of this, and you deserve a serious response to your central suggestion.

For us, we won’t be supporting it for reasons I will indicate, but we certainly do share the aim for more efficient energy use at more competitive prices. It’s our view that this can be achieved without heavy Government intervention or nationalisation. I do note that the thrust of the Plaid Cymru recommendation is to have a sort of national company that’s bought into by local communities and local authorities, potentially. I suppose if something does emerge that is built up from the local direction and mirrors something like Glas Cymru, then there’s more feasibility for that. But I have to say that imposing this sort of structure, pushing the initiative and forcing it, is something we would be suspicious about.

Would the Member just give way on that point?

Yes.

Just briefly, if I could put it to him, if I was a Conservative I would have thought that an energy cap was also a very heavy-handed intervention into the market. [Laughter.]

Well, it brings me nicely on to the point that it is not an efficient or perfect market.

Oh, we agree there. [Laughter.]

I can hear a UKIP Member muttering, ‘There’s no perfect solution either’, and that probably does sum up the difficulty we’re in.

But energy prices are high and they’re also very difficult to understand whenever you get your energy bill. Unless you did double maths at A-level, I don’t think you’ve got a hope, and perhaps you need to have studied it at university as well. But, in general, we are about 15 per cent higher on electricity prices than the OECD average and that pinches on us all. It’s particularly, I think, dramatic and unfortunate for those in fuel poverty.

According to some calculations, it would be feasible to deliver energy effectively, use it efficiently and reduce the costs by as much as 50 per cent. So, if there is that type of potential saving, I think it is something that we should very much aim for, with, of course, efficiency being key to that part. If we all use more energy as it becomes cheaper, it’s not going to really get us anywhere.

I think we do sign up to the principle that more local generation is important and the use of other models, innovative models, like co-operatives. I think many of us would have visited some of these schemes and found them very noteworthy and inspiring. There are some drawbacks. We need a balanced diet here, really, of providers. There’s a need for resilience and you don’t always get that in local community-run projects. Also, we still need a wider strategy, and I think that is a very, very important matter to be borne in mind.

Can I just say that whilst we have some reservations about Plaid’s approach, we are pleased to note them and welcome this as part of a healthy debate? Perhaps Plaid Cymru will find comfort in this, but we actually find the Government’s amendment broadly right in terms of its approach, although that is not me praising full-scale all the current approaches taken by the Government in terms of energy, and we would very much urge them to look at some of the longer term structural issues that are limiting growth and development in mid and north Wales, in terms of the grid and access to it, and how smaller scale hydro projects, in particular, connect to it. But can I say that I think we need a policy based on increasingly efficient use and distribution of electricity? We need to reduce fossil fuel use. I think that is very, very important, and reference has been made to electric cars, but of course that only then invites you to think about how you’re going to generate that electricity at source, and we do not want to be fossil fuel dependent, and our aim is a low-carbon economy, and also plenty of room for innovative community projects. Again, I’ll just finish by commending Plaid Cymru for, I think this is the first debate on a commissioned report by a political party using the new resources, so at least, on that, I can say ‘well done’.

If we are serious about tackling climate change as one of the greatest threats facing humanity, then we must first of all reduce our energy use—that’s always the starting point when it comes to energy policy—but then increase the percentage of energy that is produced from renewable sources. Plaid Cymru’s aim in order to enable us to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and 40 per cent by 2020, is to produce as much energy as is used in Wales from renewable sources by 2035, and Ynni Cymru would have a key role to play in achieving that particular ambition.

As we’ve heard, in the last Assembly the Environment and Sustainability Committee produced a report entitled, ‘A Smarter Energy Future for Wales’, and it received cross-party support. What it was in reality was a blueprint in terms of moving this agenda forward. It suggested ways of achieving the economic potential that emerges from using our natural resources in a responsible and sustainable manner, and creating jobs and wealth for the people of Wales in so doing. It allows us to tackle the issue of fuel poverty, to clearly tackle climate change and also, of course, to empower local communities to be far more proactive and far more engaged in deciding their own energy futures. Wales doesn’t have to wait for further powers from Westminster in this area before delivering much of what is contained within the committee’s vision. We could start on much of this work now, and far more of it should have already been commenced over a year ago.

One of the committee’s recommendations in that report was to create an umbrella not-for-profit energy company. We heard that local authorities across England have established such companies. We know of examples in Bristol and in Nottingham, and of course we can use that in order to target and tackle fuel poverty. We know that, in Nottingham, Robin Hood Energy offers a particular tariff for residents of Nottingham only, but also within that they can set lower rates in specific areas where there is a great deal of fuel poverty.

That isn’t to say that nothing is happening in Wales. We know in Bridgend council, for example, about the local heat networks there. Wrexham council has already done a great deal in terms of solar energy. But this should be the norm rather than exceptions, as is too often the case. The creation of a national energy company for Wales would be a chance for us to get to the core of some of these issues of fuel poverty, to invest in infrastructure, to undertake joint bargaining and energy generation, to strengthen research and development in energy, and in so doing create those commercial opportunities that will bring broader benefits to the people of Wales, never mind, of course, the environmental benefits.

Reducing demand for energy is a very important way and a key part of that process of moving to a smarter energy future, and we know that households in the UK spend some 80 per cent of their energy cost on heating rooms and heating water in homes. We therefore need to ensure that homes are as efficient as possible in terms of energy usage. We know that there are schemes such as Arbed and Nest making a contribution, but as I’ve said time and time again, they are nowhere near enough in terms of responding to the scale of the challenge facing us and the level of investment that’s truly required when it comes to that agenda. But I would certainly feel that Ynni Cymru would have a role in that area in terms of encouraging and educating people on how to tackle this whole agenda.

So, we need to move away—and I’ve said this previously, but I can’t make the point strongly enough. We have to move away from this hub-and-spoke model of energy production, where energy is produced in large centralised power stations and is transferred inefficiently, in a very costly way, across an ageing grid, which is creaking very often. We need to move to a model of a grid that is more of a spider’s web—a smarter grid with the energy being produced closer to where it is to be consumed. Ynni Cymru could certainly be part of that transformation. It could also look at new storage systems in homes and on a civic level—[Interruption.] I have only 10 seconds left, unfortunately. We also need to look at the planning system, and the committee’s report has done that. My plea is that the template and the blueprint are in place; what we need now is the political will to drive this agenda forward.

Well, I’m delighted to take part in this debate and I’ve read with interest the paper that has been produced by Simon Thomas, but I have some difficulty in understanding how such a company could, in practice, make any material difference to the provision of power in Wales if it doesn’t have access to capital from private markets. I assume that we’re not thinking of setting up a nationalised energy company. Of course, there is a role for co-operatives and so on, but that is not likely to make more than a marginal difference to the current state of the market. I’m not opposed to this, in principle, but I do see certain practical difficulties in bringing it about to make a difference.

I do have some difficulty with some of the claims that are made in the context of this paper, on which the proposal is based, which I’ll come to in a moment. But, I mean, the background to all of this is the Climate Change Act, and this is explicit in the foreword to the document. We have an obligation to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We need to be absolutely clear that this can only be done by imposing colossal costs, both on households and businesses in Wales. In considering, as we heard in the last debate, that we have some of the poorest parts of not only the United Kingdom, but also western Europe, that is a significant burden that has to be taken into account.

The costs of the Climate Change Act distributed amongst the population in 2014 were £5 billion per annum. This is reflected in our electricity bills, as well as parts of the costs of providing ourselves with power, which are met by companies and feed into the power bills in other ways as well—a combination, therefore, of direct green taxes on the one hand and increased generating costs on the other. That figure of £5 billion in 2014 will rise to £14 billion a year in 2020. Let’s put these figures into real perspective. What does it mean for average households? In 2020, the average household in the United Kingdom will be paying £584 a year for the obligations that we’ve assumed under the Climate Change Act. In 2030 that figure will have risen to £875 a year. By 2050 it will be £1,390 a year extra that people are paying on their electricity bills. Those are in constant prices today. So, in the 16 years between 2014 and 2030 the average household in Wales will pay an extra £11,000 in the costs of electricity. That is not an insignificant sum and, of course, the further down the income scale you go, the greater the burden that is felt. So, we have to be pretty clear that what we’re doing is worthwhile and ultimately to the public benefit. I don’t believe that that is the case.

It is said in the justification for this change that there is a list of present and future challenges facing energy supply in Wales. It refers to, for example, increased incidents of erratic weather events due to climate change. I know of no evidence whatsoever to justify that claim. In fact, the evidence is all the other way. What is it that we are seeing in world weather patterns that is any different from any time in the last 100 years? The data sets, of course, beyond that are not available, so we can’t compare like with like for a very long period. So, we’re making dramatic assumptions on the basis of inadequate data, on the basis of which we’re imposing real burdens upon real people. I don’t believe, as legislators, that it’s a responsible way for us to behave.

If we just take hurricanes, for example, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the climate alarmists in the world said that, you know, the end of the world was nigh and we had moved into an era of greater volatility that was going to impose massive costs upon the world. Well, the evidence of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, which go back to 1851, is that no major hurricane of category 3 or more has hit the continental US since Wilma in October 2005. So, we have the longest pause on record, and the NOAA says:

It is premature to conclude that human activities—and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming—have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane…activity.’

In the bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 2015, there was a very interesting article upon understanding trends in extreme storms and the state of knowledge. That noted that there was:

No significant trend in the number of US hurricanes hitting the US since 1900; the increase since 1970 appears to be natural variation.’

The variation occurs within years and within decades, but not over the whole length of time of the data sets. This experience could be replicated for tornadoes, for droughts, and all sorts of other natural weather conditions.

In the course of five minutes, of course, I can barely begin to argue this point. But all that I would like to say in conclusion in this debate is that there is no scientific basis that we can rely upon unambiguously to justify the vast costs that we, deliberately, as legislators, are imposing upon ordinary and vulnerable people.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to be responding to this debate. Welsh Government has clearly stated its ambition to deliver a low-carbon energy system for Wales. In doing this, we have committed to deliver the maximum benefits for Wales from this transition and protect the most vulnerable. So, I very much welcome the work that has been done on developing the Ynni Cymru model.

Certainly, reading the report, I think it’s very clear that the report identifies very similar strategic priorities to those that I set out in my energy statement in December: using energy more efficiently, moving to low-carbon generation, and gaining economic benefit from the new technologies and business models that are emerging from the transition.

Most of the types of activity proposed here are already being taken forward by Welsh Government funded programmes of support, such as Welsh Government Warm Homes, the Local Energy service, and the public sector support offer. We continue to identify sources of capital finance that can be used to support the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects across all sectors. I think we’ve had significant impact with our energy efficiency programmes to date and we are keen to continue to address the energy efficiency challenge and set out actions to be taken forward.

I think it was an initial exchange between Simon Thomas and myself that sort of got this conversation going around having a not-for-profit company. Simon Thomas and I had an initial meeting and then Welsh Government held three events across Wales in March to collect evidence and views about the potential for an energy service company for Wales, and Simon spoke at the event in Aberystwyth. I think it’s really helpful to see that the aspirations that you’ve spoken about today, Simon, are really set out in the report that we’re considering today.

The Environment and Sustainability Committee of the last Assembly recommended setting up an energy company and its report recognised the risks and challenges in entering what is now a highly competitive market, with over 50 players. Certainly, the feedback that we had from those three meetings is that it is very challenging at the moment to sell cheap energy that is also low carbon unless you own the generation. Profits are, therefore, uncertain. As one participant told us at an event, the supply sector is about high customer volumes and very low margins.

The feedback we got was that people felt we needed to be very clear on the purpose of an energy company. There is a danger that an energy company could become a distraction from what is really needed, which is the work we’re already doing in driving investment in energy efficiency, renewable generation and infrastructure to enable that transition to a decarbonised smart energy system in Wales.

We do need to look at the benefits and the risks of such a company. We also need to be clear about the purpose of a company—it could tackle energy prices, it could address issues of trust in providers, or it could help to provide a market for Welsh generators, but it’s unlikely that any single model would be able to tackle all of the issues.

So, it’s good to be working with people who are interested in this idea to understand what activity is already under way and clarify how the Welsh Government can best add value in this area. We’re also aware of a number of organisations within Wales that are already considering or taking action, against a background where the number of energy companies is increasing rapidly. As I said, there are already 50 providers with a supply licence, some of which have social outcomes at their centre, providing greater choice. However, we have seen the failure of GB Energy, and I think that demonstrates that it is difficult to compete in an increasingly crowded market.

We also got some feedback from the events about the fact that Welsh Government needs to continue to provide a supportive policy environment and co-ordinate activity across Wales to enable projects to be delivered for the benefit of Wales. Another bit of feedback was that people felt that the Government’s job should be to act as an honest and trusted voice above the sales patter of competing energy suppliers, looking at the strategic and regulatory issues. We’re already doing this—we work very closely with Ofgem, distribution network operators, the National Grid, and UK Government to ensure they deliver on our priority to deliver an energy system that enables the low-carbon transition in Wales. An arm’s-length body without the convening power of Government would not be able to do this.

We’re focusing Government’s resources on identifying and addressing the gaps in the market, linking up activities and supporting developments that won’t happen naturally. So, this is exactly what we’re doing by supporting projects such as Energy Local in Bethesda, which is piloting the local selling of electricity, and I’m looking forward to visiting there very soon. I think that will help us understand how regulation needs to change to help this to happen more widely.

We’ve already identified heat as a key area, and have been working with Bridgend to identify new approaches to delivering low-carbon heat. We are now gathering evidence to inform the development of the support services we provide to public bodies and local energy groups in Wales. These services have already captured local benefit from delivering energy projects across Wales, and they will continue to form a key part of our approach to creating the right environment for that transition to low carbon in Wales.

So, I very much look forward to publishing our report from those recent events, along with our position on the proposal. I very much look forward to continuing to work with Simon Thomas, and any other elected Members who support our vision, to identify how to continue to use the available resources in the most innovative ways to deliver our energy aims.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank everyone who’s taken part. I think if we can try and come to at least one thing we’re all decided upon and agree upon, which is that it is an imperfect market and it is not delivering the efficiencies that you would expect a good market to do—that’s why it needs such heavy regulation. I think I could test that by asking Members to raise their hands if they still remain with the original energy company that they were with before privatisation, and I think there’d be quite a few who are already just slightly indicating that they are, indeed, still with those originals—Swalec or British Gas or whatever it was. I think that just shows that the market is very difficult for the average consumer to do battle in. That’s why we do need consumer champions, and that can be a regulator or it could be a company that’s set up to intervene in a particular way.

I’m very pleased that the Welsh Government has undertaken its consultation events, and I look forward to hearing more detail from them—I certainly was very pleased to attend the one in Aberystwyth, and I think it’s fair to say there was enthusiasm in that event for a development like this, though I accept that purpose and focus will be very important. What would the main purpose or focus be? There are a wide range of things that an energy company could be. It could be fuel poverty, it could be renewable energy, it could be investment, and it has to specialise—well, not specialise; it has to lead with some of these to really be effective. That’s a decision that I’d like to engage with the Welsh Government on, but not one that simply says, ‘Well, let’s carry on the way we are’, because I think there’s so much wrong with the market at the moment that we’d be letting the people of Wales down if we don’t have a more substantial intervention.

Llyr Gruffydd described the ideal scenario as more of a spider’s web kind of approach to maintaining or catching the flies or whatever it might be, but maintaining our energy. I would like to think that a Wales energy company would be just one of the threads—it wouldn’t be the whole spider’s web, but it would be one of the main threads that held that web together, and the stickiest one, of course; that’s very important.

We heard—I think the substantial part of Neil Hamilton’s argument was around costs and around investment. I think it’s important to note that the proposal we have—and it’s just a discussion document, but one of the proposals in that document is that you could float such a company, but that we’d want the Welsh Government to retain a controlling stake. But there’s no reason why private markets can’t get involved here. But I think there is a fundamental mistake in trying to argue that the world is not changing. China is investing £300 billion in renewable energy just by 2020. India has a target of getting 60 per cent from renewable energy by 2027. We’re actually old-fashioned in this regard; it’s the new economies that are moving ahead.

And it’s fair to say that there are, of course, carbon taxes, if you wanted to call them that, but there’s £6 billion a year of subsidy going into the current fossil fuel industry—£6 billion; twice that which is going into renewables—twice that—and that’s mainly in tax breaks in North Sea oil and gas, of course. There are also substantial subsidies through the strike price into nuclear, and I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge that there’s an ongoing subsidy to the way we live today, and that the demand to have new subsidies for a change to meet the challenges of the future is not unreasonable in that context. I think—though Neil Hamilton wouldn’t agree with this, I think, and I accept what David Melding said—we have to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. That’s good for us environmentally, but it’s good for us as a nation as well because it makes us more reliant—self-reliant, I should say. We have the energy here, with our coastline and our mountains and our rivers, to become more self-reliant in energy. Who wouldn’t want to become more self-reliant in energy?

Does he agree that a significant proportion of the subsidies to fossil fuel currently are in respect of decommissioning in the North Sea and, presumably, that’s something he wants to see rather than the oil infrastructure simply left there?

Well, it’s a mix, to be honest with you; some of it is that, but that’s only a continuation of the previous tax breaks that were for exploration. So, they’ve simply just changed it the other way round.

I wanted to conclude just on that, actually, and just to thank Members for at least acknowledging that this debate has been engendered not only by Plaid Cymru policy, but also using the resources of the Assembly, and I hope we see more debates like this. I encourage Members to use their funds for policy development in this way; I was very careful there, Presiding Officer, to say what I meant to say—for policy development in this way. Please bring forward more debates in this regard. The resources are there to support us as Assembly Members. It does mean that we can think outside the box from time to time as well. I think this is something that will develop naturally and organically in Wales; we will see local energy companies develop over a period of time. I’d just like to see us to take more national leadership on the issue.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

Voting time now proceeds. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.