The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Julie James.

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on establishing a publicly owned energy company. I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion—Simon.

Motion NDM6735 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes Plaid Cymru’s long-standing proposal for establishing a publicly owned energy company, Ynni Cymru.

2. Notes the Welsh Labour party’s 2017 manifesto commitment to support 'the creation of publicly owned, locally accountable energy companies and co-operatives to rival existing private energy suppliers, with at least one in every region'.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to establish a publicly owned energy company.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I can’t recall when was the last time we had a debate in the Assembly led by two papers, one published by one opposition party and the other published by another opposition party. This debate emerges from a paper that I published around a year ago on the proposal to establish an energy company for Wales. As I said in the previous debate, if you have an idea that is a good one and has yet to be implemented, then there’s no disgrace in recycling that idea. Therefore, I'm not going to apologise for bringing this debate back to the Assembly, although we have discussed the idea in the past.

I bring it back in the context where there may be a major decision to be made on the future of energy in Wales, with not only the possible investment in Wylfa, Wylfa B, but also the proposed possible decision of not investing in the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. I will come to that in a few moments, because it’s very relevant to the concept put forward by Plaid Cymru in its paper and in today’s debate.

I’ll give you some context first of all. Wales is a nation that is rich in energy. We produce, or collect, I should say, more energy than we use, therefore, we are an energy exporter. But yet, energy prices in Wales are among the highest in Europe, and that demonstrates the situation that we’re in as a nation. Energy poverty is particularly damaging to low-income households. There’s a tendency to have ad hoc payment systems for energy, and they can’t access the best tariffs. Also, in west Wales we have a number of areas that are not on the national grid, so they depend on gas or oil that is imported. It is also true to say that although we generate electricity, we have the capacity to produce far more, particularly in terms of renewables. There are 5 million acres of land in Wales where we could produce on our coastline and on the mainland. The Welsh economy demands a great deal of electricity—we still have manufacturing plants and steelworks—and therefore we need that energy.

Creating a national energy company for Wales is an opportunity to get to the core of the issue of energy poverty, by investing in infrastructure, by coming to joint agreements and by using the power of a national company, research and development in energy, and the creation of commercial opportunities for the benefit of the people of Wales and the environment. Fracking isn’t the solution for using energy for the benefit of the Welsh economy, but a major concept such as this one that uses the whole range of the natural resources of Wales.

We’re also facing a very real threat to humanity because of climate change. Indeed, 2016 was the warmest year since records began, and we’ve just had the warmest May ever since the month-by-month statistics started to be gathered a century ago. If we are serious about a cut of 80 per cent in emissions by 2050, as is set out in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and to reach the target that all parties agreed on in this place of cutting carbon emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, which is what the Paris agreement expects of us, then it means that we need to improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions from homes, businesses and transport, and it also means that we need to produce energy from cleaner and renewable sources.

Our vision, therefore, is an environment where Wales reduces its carbon emissions, harnesses its natural resources sustainably and takes opportunity in the low-carbon and circular economies. The link between energy and climate change is clear. However, unfortunately, we are still in a position where we have to wait for Westminster to give us some crumbs from their table when it comes to a matter of powers over energy.

Decisions in terms of most financial incentives for renewable energy and the future of the gas and electricity grids are mainly made in London, although we have powers to plan energy under 35 MW now. The fact is that where the grid works and where the money goes is what’s driving developments. The fact that we can permit planning—that, at the end of the day, in a way, is only a tick in a box. The decisions are made far earlier.

Now, what would a national energy company be able to do for Wales, therefore? Well, the remit of a possible company would include a reduction in unit price for energy to homes and businesses in Wales, a reduction in the quantity of energy used in businesses and homes, and helping users to make best use in terms of smart metres and so on. The task of Ynni Cymru would be to finance and install solar panels on a broad scale, on homes and businesses, on lampposts—businesses—to overlap, perhaps, a little with the discussion that we just had a moment ago here. This would be done by local companies under the national umbrella, starting, perhaps, with public buildings and social housing. The company could harmonise and facilitate the use of public land for renewable energy. It could pay for procurement and enhanced large-scale storage. It’s a chance for Wales to become an energy storer as well as a producer. It could ensure that Wales becomes self-sufficient in renewable energy, and that it exports renewable energy too. Plaid Cymru is of the view that we could do this by 2035, and that is our target.

The task of developing a national network of regional companies or local companies could be through community ownership, or on a local level. Now, this is very important. Since the Welsh Government—and this is reflected in the Welsh Government’s amendment to the debate—rejected the concept last autumn of a national energy company, as we had proposed, they have said, ‘We need community ownership of wind turbines and renewable energy developments.’ Well, how are you going to achieve that? How are you going to achieve that without local communities being misled, if you like, or ripped off, by the major energy companies—the multinationals not just the national companies. Well, Ynni Cymru, or a national company, working for the benefit of the local community and in the name of the Welsh Government, could ensure that that didn’t happen, and that community ownership could become a reality in Wales.

We would be way ahead, therefore, of some of the developments that local authorities have in England at the moment, in developing their own energy companies. And if anything, the decision to leave the European Union and of course the internal energy market in the European Union is very important—it’s not discussed a great deal. Leaving that market takes us one step further away from the fact that we can use interconnectors, share energy, share ideas, and share the same ambitions and aspirations. All of that means, in my view, that we should hasten the process of becoming self-sufficient in terms of energy. And Plaid Cymru is strongly of the opinion, as I have said, that that could be done by 2035, as well as using renewable sources to that end. All of this brings us to the situation that’s likely to arise this week.

So, we do have a very real example now this week, it seems, because it's widely reported that this week the Westminster Government will reject the proposal to have a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. We still wait for that. [Interruption.] Just a second, if I may. I think they're trying to get what they call the good announcements out first—Wylfa, Heathrow—and then the tidal lagoon will creep out as an announcement of the weekend, possibly. I don't know, maybe Jenny Rathbone has news on that.

I do. Basically, I'm sure I share your enthusiasm for the project, and do you agree that the £200 million that the Welsh Government has put on the table, as long as the UK Government is prepared to match the strike price that they've offered to Hinkley Point, is a very good way of proceeding forward on this important project? 

Sorry, I was just about to come to that. [Laughter.] And I agree, and I was just about to use it as a good example of where this national energy company could help. Because how would the Welsh Government do that? Does it just give £200 million to a private company? Please, I don't think so. If you're going to give Welsh taxpayers' money to a company, which I wouldn't oppose, but let's do it together, co-financing—. I think £200 million is a serious offer, but it's the starting offer—maybe more is required—but in which case you'd want to take some of the profits, you'd want to be part of the technology, you'd want to be part of the profits that might come from spinning off the technology for future tidal lagoons. You need a body to do that, don't you? Well, what body do you then have to do it? When you were faced with Wales and borders franchise arrangement, you set up Transport for Wales, a non-dividend body to do that work on behalf of the Welsh Government. Surely this is an example of why we do need a national energy company to do precisely this.

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I supported and welcomed, when the initial announcement was made, a co-investment kind of model—£200 million wasn't mentioned there. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for Finance knew how much money was in the pot, but it wasn't mentioned. Now we have a figure. I think the figure is a serious opening offer. If it's going to be upped at all, then we need to take stakes in the company, stakes in the technology, stakes in the future development.

But let's put one thing to bed—the tidal lagoon is not an outrageously expensive proposal in this context. The Secretary of State for Wales has made some dreadful mistakes over the last few years, including the reneging on promises of investment for electrification for Swansea, for example. His mathematics are all to pot, I have to say. To say the tidal lagoon is asking twice as much as nuclear—no way. The tidal lagoon project specifically asked for a 90-year contract at £89.90 per MWh. It sounds a lot, but in 90 years' time, that's not a lot of money at all. That compares to Hinkley Point, which is £92.50 per MWh. The tidal lagoon would have installed capacity of 320 MW, providing power to over 150,000 homes, and as everyone knows, it's designed as a pathfinder project. That is more expensive, because the technology itself is not new, but it's the application of the technology that's new. It's not innovative to have a turbine in water, but it is innovative to put it in a wall that goes around a big tidal range. That's innovative. So, the application is innovative, not the technology. You compare something like a tidal lagoon with a nuclear power station—both have high capital costs, both of them, but over a 100-year period, which is in effect the tidal lagoon period, you get decreasing costs of production, whereas our experience with nuclear is that those costs are rarely maintained at that level. That's why they want 35-year contracts for those costs. 

So, the lagoon would provide energy security, and as the Hendry review, which was the independent review that the Government set up to look into this, said very clearly, both nuclear and tidal lagoons are UK sources of generation, but nuclear relies on imported uranium, and as other technologies move on, and as China might take up more uranium, the price of imported uranium might well rise. What the tidal lagoon gives us is Welsh generation using our own natural resources. I think that in itself is something that we support. Not only do we support it, the public support it—76 per cent supported wave and tidal energy, and 38 per cent, in that poll done itself by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, supported nuclear. 

I don't want to set up one against the other, and that's the dangerous thing that the Secretary of State is likely to do here, and say, 'Well, on Monday we gave you Wylfa, and on Friday we won't give you the tidal lagoon.' If we're going to have a proper energy mix, then we need all sources to be applied and we need in particular to see the tidal lagoon to be given the assistance of the Westminster Government. I can't put it any better than to conclude by quoting what Hendry himself said around the tidal lagoon:

'To put this in context, the cost of a pathfinder project...is expected to average around 30 pence per household per annum during the first thirty years. This seems to me an extremely modest amount to pay for a new technology which delivers those benefits and which has clear potential to start a significant new industry. Moving ahead with a pathfinder lagoon is, I believe, a no-regrets policy.'

I believe the lagoon should be supported on that basis. I believe a national energy company could be the vehicle for the Welsh Government to invest and be part of that significant new industry. We here will either take a decision this week to invest in the tidal lagoon and be part of that, or we will find ourselves supplicants once again, when, in 10 years' time perhaps, a Chinese company comes in and says, 'I love your tidal range, let's have a tidal lagoon.'

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Minister for Environment to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Amendment 1—Julie James (Swansea West)

Delete point 3 and replace with:

Notes the work carried out with stakeholders by Welsh Government indicated we should not pursue a Wales wide energy supply company, but continue to explore other mechanisms of delivering benefits to Wales in line with Welsh Government’s stated priorities and targets.

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 creating locally owned energy businesses as part of the transition to a low carbon economy.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw.

Can I first of all very much commend the work that Simon has done in this area on energy, and also the work the various parties on the various committees have looked so much at on the issue of community energy? This is an issue that isn't going to go away, and we are on a path where we will inevitably end up with community energy and the renationalisation or the re-public ownership, in whatever form, of energy, as we will with the other public services. My contribution, to some extent, is to talk about this within the concept of public ownership, because without public ownership there isn't public accountability of what the key services are that we all depend on that are essential to life.

I think what is very, very clear is that privatisation in all the areas of public service has been an absolute disaster. It's been a mechanism for the legalised mugging and robbery of members of the public. I'm not aware of any public service—and I'm a user of all the public services, as we all are—. I look around to find any of those public services—water, gas, electricity, even transport—and say, 'To what extent am I any better off as a result of privatisation?' I'm faced, as everyone else is, with systems of payment for energy and public services that I don't understand. I can't work out what they actually mean to me. I can certainly not see that I'm any better off. What's very, very clear is that in all our public services, and energy being an absolutely fundamental one of them, there is a need for a new approach to public ownership in whatever form, whether it would be not-for-profit, whether it would be co-operative or whatever.

The legacy of what the Tories have delivered us in terms of privatisation has actually resulted in some quite remarkable political changes. In terms of energy, 77 per cent of the population of the UK now want to return to public ownership of energy. They are sick to death of the system of confusion, the lack of accountability, never knowing who's in control, who is in charge. And maybe that was always part of the purpose of privatisation: to take away the route to, actually, at the end of the day, being able to hold public accountability, and maybe it is also an explanation as to why there has been such disillusionment in politics, because no longer are you able to say who you hold to account for those key services. 

Five point one per cent of energy only is renewable in the UK. Real-term prices are 10 to 20 per cent higher due to privatisation in energy, 10 per cent live in fuel poverty, and public ownership would save an estimated £3.2 billion per annum, which roughly offsets against the actual profits that are extracted out of the industry on a year by year basis. 

Countries are now returning to the concept of democratisation of public services. Germany's now moving back to a system of 15 per cent public co-op community ownership. In doing so, I think the area that we probably do need to explore much, much further is how this needs to fit within a UK-wide strategy in terms of the grid, and in terms of the actual production of energy, as well as the distribution and supply.

You have to ask why the Tories have consistently resisted and opposed the re-ownership, the re-democratisation of energy, water and so on. Well, we know it's because, for example, solely in the energy sector alone, David Cameron received £2.6 million in donations from the energy industry, and before that general election received £3.4 million. So, clearly, the energy companies know where their own vested interests lie in terms of protecting the privatisation. Nine senior Tories had second jobs on boards of directors or as consultants of the energy companies, so the whole system has been corrupt and incestuous. 

That is why it actually has to happen. We see the same with water, raised this week at the GMB conference. The bosses of the five or six main water companies are paying themselves £58 million a year in salaries, a 40 per cent increase in pay over a period of several years—the chief executive of Severn Trent Water, £2.45 million; United Utilities, £2.3 million—and all of these are companies that make significant donations to the Conservative Party. 

We see again what's happening within the NHS—£4.1 billion privatisation budget of the NHS in 2009-10, which I don't agree with, but is now £8.7 billion. Theresa May couldn't even answer that statistic. We look again at the system with the railways, the buses, telecomms, postal services and housing. So, you're heading in exactly the right direction. I think this is a road we have to go down, and I take some comfort from reading out a quote from The Spectator, a Tory-supporting magazine, which says that 

'Pragmatism will conclude that privatisation has been a failure and that continuing to defend it is beginning to look like an ideology of its own.'

So, Simon, carry on the good work. I think there's very little in terms of what we disagree with on this, and we are inevitably moving to a system where there has to be a restoration of—I don't care whether you call it public ownership or whatever—the democratisation of those services that our lives and the people of our country actually depend on. 

Simon Thomas made reference to the fact that we were reintroducing some of these ideas and we should make no apology for that. I’d like to take this opportunity to reintroduce to Assembly Members some of the findings of the report of the Environment and Sustainability Committee of the last Assembly. The last debate in this place in the last Assembly was on 'A Smarter Energy Future for Wales' and policy priorities for the new Welsh Government. And the first short debate in the current Assembly term was mine, which reintroduced some of the recommendations contained within that report, which includes, of course, the need to establish an entity such as Ynni Cymru.

That report demonstrates the challenge that we’re facing, but all of that in the context of the powers that we already have. It’s not a matter of 'Well, if we have these additional powers, we could do that.' All of the content of that report was based on what the current Government could deliver within the current settlement.

Now, it made reference to Germany, of course, where the ambition is clear: by 2050, ensure that 80 per cent of energy comes from renewable sources, but simultaneously by that point, that they should cut energy use in buildings by 80 per cent, and in light of that, create millions of jobs and also add to their GDP. It is a transformational programme in that nation.

It’s also worth looking at somewhere like Uruguay, which has a population similar to Wales, and has ensured that, in less than 10 years, 95 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources. That, of course, reduces its carbon footprint, but also reduces bills for its citizens, simultaneously. It’s not as if we don’t have the natural resources to emulate much of this; we do have the core resources required to be just as ambitious, but, of course, we have to be just as proactive, too, and not just expect things to happen without us doing that deliberately.

We need to be much more proactive, and Ynni Cymru, as we've heard, is one particular vehicle that we can and should utilise to make some of this happen. And, of course, state-controlled energy isn't unfamiliar to the market. It certainly isn't unfamiliar to us here in the UK. I suppose EDF is the most famous company—or infamous, maybe, depending what you think—but it's French owned, or 85 per cent state owned. The French state has that share in the company. But there are wholly state-owned companies as well, such as Vattenfall in Sweden and Statkraft in Norway.

Simon Thomas was talking about the potential that we have in Wales of taking a stake in the lagoon. Well, that is exactly why Statkraft was established: it wasn't just to generate a profit for the citizens of that country, it was actually to protect their natural resources from the exploitation that they were seeing coming from multinational companies, and they wanted not only to protect them, but if they were going to be used, for them to be used sustainably, to generate income and to be used in the interests of their people. And of course they still entered into joint ventures with private companies—of course they did—but that was done on their terms, so the infrastructure, for example, reverted to state ownership after a certain number of years. Any research and development; any innovation; any intellectual property was either owned by the state or jointly owned by the state, so they could then utilise that to pioneer the next generation of opportunities and have that first move and advantage that we desperately want to realise with the lagoon potential here in Wales. Of course, the glory is that it would be the Welsh people who would be the shareholders of this venture.

And that not-for-profit model, of course, in terms of utilising our natural resources isn't unfamiliar to us here in Wales in terms of water, is it? Dŵr Cymru. Welsh Ministers regularly laud that not-for-profit model as one that we're very proud of, and rightly so, so let's replicate that in this context as well.

Now, across England, we see local authorities establishing energy supply companies, not-for-profit companies. There’s been an example in the past from Nottingham, Robin Hood Energy, and of course they offer a tariff to the citizens of Nottingham that is different to the rates paid by others. There are steps being taken in Wales: we’ve seen how Bridgend, for example, has been trying to develop local heat networks, and Wrexham has been in the vanguard in terms of solar energy. Well, why not create a national entity in order to share this good practice, to bring these plans together to ensure that more of it happens, and, possibly, that some of it could happen at a national level, too?

So, the opportunities for Wales in having Ynni Cymru, as we are calling it, are exceptionally exciting: there are huge benefits, economically, environmentally and socially, and they are all very significant indeed. The challenge is set down in this motion and I would encourage you to show the same ambition as Plaid Cymru by supporting the motion.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate? I think Simon ranged far and wide and certainly beyond the wording of the motion, but, I think, outlined this whole area of policy and the challenges and shortcomings he sees in it, and it was very interesting, some of which I sympathise with.

But can I just unequivocally put on record, as I did last year when we debated this very issue—that is not a criticism; this is really important and it's appropriate it's back here—we in the Welsh Conservatives, as indeed the Welsh Labour Government, despite what Mick Antoniw has just said, do not agree with point 3 and will therefore not be supporting the motion? But, we will support the motion should amendment 1 pass.

Can I start by saying that we do share the aim for more efficient energy use and more competitive prices? But it is our view that this can be achieved without heavy Government intervention or nationalisation. The extent of publicly owned networks—I'm not quite sure if Plaid do believe in nationalisation, I'm pretty sure Mick Antoniw does, so we need a bit more precision, I think, in this debate, in what is being proposed. But while it's an important area, and we need to get it right, I do believe that we're on the right path to achieving a solution and a balance that will require a suite of comprehensive measures. 

Will the Member give way? Just for clarity, to make it absolutely clear, I'm very much in favour of nationalised public utilities, but the proposal in front of us today, in the context of a privatised market where we in the Assembly don't have the powers, is just to establish our own national company that could be part of the players within this field.

I accept that, but I think the consequences, practically, of what you are proposing would go far deeper than that, and if I have time, I will touch on those.

I don't talk about this lightly. Energy prices are high and they are difficult to understand, and perhaps there's a place for better co-operation between the state and the private sector. So, reform in this area is certainly required. I'm not sure if I'll be permitted to quote Will Straw—but I'm going to try, anyway—now the associate director of the centre-left IPPR think tank. He argues for more local authority involvement, promoting

'a market that is far more competitive and transparent than the one we have now.'

And he states, and I quote:

'We need a series of market reforms to improve transparency, reduce the market power of the big six and encourage new competitors to enter the market.'

And he continues:

'This could include an important role for local authorities and community groups competing at a local level by generating, offering energy-efficiency services to bring down demand and even providing local supply consortiums to get the best deal for consumers.'

That could certainly be part of a healthy energy market, it seems to me, and I think it's much better to have these more moderated approaches.

This point about local energy generation is an important one, and I do believe that we need to be providing more resources and support in this area. Can I quote Archie Thomas, the energy spokesman for the Green Party? Shall I do that first before I give way, Jenny? He also thinks that: 

'local energy generation is the key—and that it supercedes the issue of whether the power giants are publicly or privately owned.'

And I quote:

'The real future for energy is not private or nationalised energy companies but low-carbon energy owned and managed by local communities.'

People need power over their own energy, and you don't get that in a nationalised system, necessarily. I will give way.  

Whilst I appreciate you're not an enthusiast for nationalisation, would you agree that Germany is hardly a hardcore socialist economy and there, what we have is a flowering of local energy companies that provide proper competition that is lacking in the UK? Would you and the Conservative Party agree that that is a model that we ought to be aspiring to here in Wales?

As we heard, they are moving to a mixed system—more state intervention, but not excluding the private sector. I'm happy to look at the models that work, and as an empirical Tory, I can see no other policy being appropriate than one that is seen to work in practice. As I said, I'm for reform and I think that indicates that the current model dominated by the six giants is not delivering the level of efficiency, competition and fair prices that we would need.

I'm already out of time, but I think you'll perhaps—

I'll allow you for the intervention, but not too long.

I think the real issue is the extent of what Plaid Cymru are calling for: what would it amount to? And I noticed in your spring conference, Adam Price was a bit more candid, calling for a connected Wales, creating an national energy grid with a national energy company connecting locally owned electricity-generating companies in every part of Wales. Now, it does seem to me that this company would be taking over the operations of the National Grid. How can any private energy supplier hope to compete with a nationalised company providing such unfair institutional advantages? These proposals, it seems to me, go a lot further than what you put before the Assembly last week. Now, that's fine, you're developing your policy, and it's your absolute right, but I have to say this vision of the happy salad days of when all utilities were public, and nationalised, most of them, and created effective investment, a good level of service and low prices is, frankly, a load of hooey.

I think it would only be fair for me today to begin to note, again, as Simon Thomas has already said, an enormous missed opportunity we've seen in Swansea bay lately. This isn't just about the energy benefits that a lagoon could have brought, if it is to be rejected, but it's also about another example in a long line of examples where a London Government has ignored Wales, erased Wales out of their minds. Put simply, the tidal lagoon debacle shows that, for the UK Government, Wales just does not matter.

The benefits of a tidal lagoon are positive: long-term, low-cost energy that would have made Wales a world leader in the sector; capital investment in my region of added value that would have been hard to quantify, since we hardly ever get any major capital investment in our country any more, particularly in my region; and, of course, for Swansea bay, as my colleague Dr Dai Lloyd would say, this comes after the insult of losing the investment in electrification by the UK Government too. The tidal lagoon demonstrates that UK Government is simply not interested in Wales.

It's obvious that, if Wales wants to move forward, we have to look at our own skills and create our own opportunities, as Llyr Huws Gruffydd said so eloquently earlier. How can we develop the energy base and skills for the future? Plaid Cymru has been calling for a national energy company for some time, as has been exemplified earlier—lower cost energy and more control, greater investment opportunities and breaking into what is a heavily monopolised sector. When privatisation was first mooted, the point was to allow choice, competition and a view to drive up standards, but, like so many other privatisation drives, this isn't what has happened. Now, here in Wales, despite being an energy powerhouse in comparison to many other places of our size, we have some of the highest energy costs, and it shouldn't be like this.

So, we propose an end to the energy giants' monopoly in Wales. The potential rewards could be massive. Just imagine how we could tackle fuel poverty. In Aberdeen, the city has set up Aberdeen Heat and Power, a not-for-profit energy company, backed initially by local authority loans and guarantees to provide lower cost heating for local authority and social housing tenants. AHP now supplies heating and hot water for flats in 33 multistorey blocks and 15 public buildings. Many of those blocks had very low energy ratings, they were difficult and expensive to heat, and 70 per cent of multistorey blocks in Aberdeen were in fuel poverty. Now, carbon emissions have gone down by 45 per cent, and the cost to tenants to heat and power their homes has gone down by around 50 per cent. There is virtually no fuel poverty now, and this shows what we could do to break the power of the energy monopolies. And, if a city in Scotland can do it, why not Wales? An umbrella body, a national company, would facilitate the community initiatives already in place and would act as a rocket booster for this sector. As has been mentioned by Jenny Rathbone already, the city of Hamburg in Germany, a city of nearly 2 million, is in the process of buying up their city energy grid and moving to not-for-profit services. Ynni Cymru could also act as a supplier and investor in the renewable energy sector that our country desperately needs. We've seen opportunities go by the wayside, and some projects in discussion so long they eventually die a death.

A national energy company could properly invest in solar energy. Research for the Solar Trade Association in 2014 showed that, on a UK level, bold ambition for both large-scale domestic and commercial rooftop solar could support an average of nearly 50,000 jobs a year between 2014 and 2030. Now, that was 2014. Costs are coming down as technology advances and energy production potential increases, but we are missing the boat and not keeping pace with other countries. In Germany, again, about 20,000 households are already part of an initiative that connects homes that independently produce energy. A virtual network allows them to buy and sell excess energy to each other at a reduced cost. There are other micro-grids developing elsewhere, such as in Brooklyn in the United States.

Now, there are some great projects in Wales already, and we need to encourage and support them. Llyr mentioned Wrexham, and I think that's something we have to start. If we can get local authorities to put solar panels on their council houses—I know UKIP would obviously disagree with this, but I think that that would be something that we could see as something positive, so that people could then have lower bills for their energy consumption. I visited the Rhondda tunnel project again this week, and their plans are to develop microhydropower powered by local waterworks in Nant Gwynfi, which would illuminate the tunnel and premises locally, and give income from the excess to, then, the Rhondda Tunnel Ltd, once they become a company.

Now, these are really amazing concepts that we need to be supporting here in Wales. Even when the National Assembly committee makes recommendations, as the energy and sustainability committee did on this issue, recommending a national umbrella energy not-for-profit, the Welsh Government didn't then see a case for action, and I'd question why not. A continuation of the ad hoc small scale ventures is appropriate from time to time, but if they had a national company that would support them and be able to invest in them then this would show a bold vision for our national Government and show leadership in that regard. So, I would urge the Welsh Government to come out of their comfort zone in this regard and to set up this company to show that we do have a vision for Wales and that we can actually keep up with the developments across Europe. At the moment, we are lagging far behind, and we shouldn't have to, because of the wealth of energy that we do have here in Wales.

Firstly, may I say I'm supporting this motion in a personal capacity? My party will have a free vote on the proposals, and my contribution to this debate will be brief and succinct.

I believe it is essential that the people of Wales have the broadest—[Interruption.] I'm sorry. I believe it is essential that the people of Wales have the broadest possible range of choice with regard to energy and suppliers, but I am also fundamentally opposed to our utilities being placed in the hands of private operators. I echo all of Mick Antoniw's comments on public ownership of utilities. I therefore thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this debate to the Chamber. The establishment of a not-for-profit—

Would the Member give way?

Of course.

Thank you very much. It's often said of economists that, if you ask four economists their opinion, they'll give you five answers. Is the same true of UKIP's position on energy policy?

Shall I say that we are a party that thinks out of the box? [Laughter.] And therefore we're a party of free minds as well.

Well, I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the establishment of a not-for-profit Welsh-based energy company or companies must work in the interests of the Welsh public. Many of the private companies supplying Welsh homes are foreign-owned. This means that at least some of the revenue earned leaves the country, to the benefit of recipients elsewhere. 

Being a not-for-profit company should intrinsically mean that it is able to be very competitive and may even have the effect of driving down energy supply prices, and could of course utilise all the levers of any production mentioned by Simon—although, of course, I would not agree with all the systems of energy production that he mentioned. I therefore echo Plaid Cymru's call for the Welsh Government to establish a publicly-owned energy company.

In my constituency in Arfon, we have three successful community hydroelectricity schemes, with plans in the pipeline for further initiatives. These are exactly the kinds of initiatives that need support, and establishing the Ynni Cymru company, as recommended Plaid Cymru today, could give a significant boost to this sector, on top of the other benefits that have been outlined.

The community sector has witnessed a great deal of change over the past few years: from the time before the feed-in tariffs, when 100 per cent grants were available, to the era of the FIT, when communities were seen to benefit from green energy, to the demise of the FIT and the less stable period that followed.

The future is rather uncertain at present as a result, but Ynni Cymru could give a clear focus to the work of these community initiatives, emphasising the collaboration between Natural Resources Wales, the local authorities, and the communities themselves. If the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is not to go ahead, then the funds should be invested in renewable energy initiatives instead, including community-owned projects.

Ynni Ogwen is one of these schemes. Local people represent 85 per cent of the shareholders, and almost £0.5 million was raised within two months in local shares. We’re not talking about a wealthy area here. We’re talking about a post-industrial community that is relatively poor, but it is a proud community that has seen the value of generating clean energy for the benefit of the local community.

Ynni Ogwen is more than a hydro scheme. It also successfully raises awareness of environmental issues and climate change, and it is the community itself that has generated this clean energy. They own it, and this gives confidence to the community.

Those associated with initiatives like Ynni Ogwen say clearly that more financial investment is needed, as well as greater structural and structured support from local and central Government, including practical support. Community groups often do not have engineering or environmental expertise, and buying in these kinds of expertise can be very expensive. This is the role that Ynni Cymru could fulfil, providing the practical expert support in an accessible manner.

In a series of meetings on community energy held across Wales with the support of Bangor University in the spring of this year, a forum was held to discuss future opportunities and challenges for community energy in Wales. Ynni Ogwen, Awel Aman Tawe and the Swansea community energy scheme played a central role in these events. The discussions led to a number of conclusions. The sector tells us that robust strategic support is needed for community energy in Wales; consistency is needed with regard to the level of support that is available, moving away from the regular changes we have seen; we need to develop a way to facilitate direct trade between local schemes and local businesses and users; local government and health boards must commit to buying energy locally; departments such as the departments for economic development, planning and energy must work together much more; and we also need to give the sector much more encouragement across Wales, drawing attention to all of the benefits. This is work that could be done effectively by Ynni Cymru.

Tackling fuel poverty should be central to the development of community energy. With 23 per cent of households in Wales living in fuel poverty, the focus must be on tackling poverty. The Centre for Sustainable Energy has found that projects tend to emanate, if truth be told, from wealthier areas. As it happens, Ynni Ogwen is an exception to that rule, but we do need more support in those low-income communities to support community energy schemes so that those communities can share in the economic, social and health-related benefits that the projects will bring.

The creation of Ynni Cymru could bring all of these strands together and give a clear focus and direction to the work that needs to be developed over the coming years, bringing the groups together, providing support and expertise the length and breadth of Wales—in rural and urban areas alike. Doing so would allow the community sector to grow quickly, contributing to the creation of a renewable energy sector that is exciting in Wales, allowing us to realise the full potential of our natural resources for the benefit of our nation.

Can I call on the Minister for Environment, Hannah Blythyn?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to welcome the opportunity to reply to this debate today, and I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru for proposing this debate today.

I'd like to thank all Members for their interesting and engaging debate today. Simon Thomas, on opening, said he made no apologies for recycling this debate. Well, we have a proud record on recycling in Wales.

The Welsh Government has clearly set out our ambition to transform the energy system in Wales, so that we move to a low-carbon system. By doing this, I believe that we can secure economic advantage and positively impact on the well-being of the people of Wales.

As the motion sets out, the Labour Party established a clear vision for energy in our 2017 general election manifesto, which included actions at both a UK and Wales level. The first step, to take control of energy supply networks at a UK level, has not been taken by the UK Conservative Government. The second step, to establish publicly owned, locally accountable energy companies and co-operatives to rival existing private energy suppliers, can be achieved in a host of different ways, many of which we have been pursuing. Only one method has been explicitly ruled out, and that is the establishment of a Wales-wide energy supply company. The Welsh Government explained our reasons for this in a written statement last August, which built on evidence from workshops around Wales over that summer. Our conclusion was that a strong case has not been made for establishing an umbrella supply company for Wales. This has been borne out by evidence since, which shows that the public supply companies that we studied last year are still reliant on public sector support and have yet to generate revenue. Bristol Energy made a loss of £7.7 million last year, and the break-even date has been postponed to 2021. It also recently lost a contract to supply Bristol council.

The people who contributed to the conversation about energy companies last year gave us a strong steer on their vision for the Welsh Government's role on energy. They asked that we provide a supportive policy environment, co-ordinate activity across Wales and act as an honest, independent and trusted voice, looking at the strategic and regulatory issues that impact on the energy system. This is what the Welsh Government seeks to do.

Plaid Cymru's report 'Ynni Cymru' sets out a vision of Wales reducing carbon emissions, harnessing natural resources sustainably and seizing opportunities in the low-carbon and circular economies. This vision is consistent with the Welsh Government's energy priorities, which were set out in November 2016: to use energy more efficiently, to generate more from renewables, and to derive multiple benefits from the transition. With evidence that our approach is working, we have seen renewable generation in Wales go from 8 per cent of the electricity that we used in 2006 to 43 per cent in 2016. In order that this can continue to increase, we continue to urge the UK Government to restore the support for new onshore wind and solar schemes. Excluding these proven lowest-cost technologies from the energy market mechanism is increasing the price of energy. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary Lesley Griffiths recently met Claire Perry, Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, and reinforced our persistent ask that the UK Government restore support to the most affordable renewable developments. Failure to do so is restricting our ability to decarbonise and is driving up energy costs.

Others today have referenced the current context in which we find ourselves, with the announcements with regard to Wylfa Newydd and potential announcements on the tidal lagoon. The First Minister welcomed the UK Government's announcement on Wylfa Newydd. We will continue to build on the close working relationship established with Ynys Môn council and other key regional stakeholders, with the aim of securing a lasting legacy for Wales. We know that tidal lagoons could also play a part in Wales's energy future. I know that Members will be well aware that the First Minister wrote to Greg Clark this week, offering to consider an equity or loan investment in the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project, if there was commitment from the UK Government for an appropriate contract for difference.

The Welsh Government does not hold all of the levers needed to tackle low incomes and energy prices, which makes the eradication of fuel poverty a significant challenge. Once updated fuel poverty data is available towards the end of this year, we will involve stakeholders in developing future actions on tackling fuel poverty in Wales. Improving the energy efficiency of homes in Wales is the most sustainable way to reduce energy bills, reduce carbon emissions from our housing stock and improve the health and well-being of occupants. This, in turn, reduces the burden on our public services.

Since 2011, we have invested over £240 million to improve the energy efficiency of over 45,000 homes of those on low incomes who live in the most economically disadvantaged and vulnerable areas of Wales. In this Government term, we have committed to invest £104 million to improve up to a further 25,000 homes. Our investment will also lever in—

Will you take an intervention? I just wanted to ask if you could perhaps comment on some of the ideas that we have brought to you today. I have listed one in Aberdeen. Siân has listed one in Ogwen. Llyr has listed one in Wrexham. If you could give us an idea as to what you think of their potential, so that, potentially, we can try to look at a national company when you think it may be more viable. I hear what you say about Bristol, but looking at one example may not be a picture of how they all would operate. We could do something differently and better, perhaps.

Clearly, this is an ongoing discussion in terms of what works in Wales. Hopefully I can get on to some of that further in the response as well.

Since 2011, Warm Homes Nest has provided impartial advice and support over 98,000 households. Whilst there is no direct evidence, it's likely that this advice has helped to increase supplier switching, which is low in Wales, to a position where 19 per cent of our residents have recently switched, compared to 18 per cent in England.

Our Green Growth Wales service has built on previous success in the last year. The service has provided technical, commercial and procurement support to the public sector to deliver a range of energy efficiency and renewable energy products. The investment committed in the last financial year alone was over £28 million, demonstrating the benefits of our long-term approach to capacity building. Projects supported include a range of street lighting projects, including a commitment of £1.5 million in a Flintshire project and another £3.3 million—

Will you take an intervention? I'm sorry to interrupt, and I'm grateful to you for taking an intervention, but, similar to Bethan Jenkins, I realise that you have a speech to go through, but what do you think? How far do you think Wales could go in terms of pushing the agenda on building a new energy future and being innovative in doing so?

May I thank the Member for his intervention? I'm probably the understudy today. Look, I said at the outset of the debate that this raises many interesting and innovative and creative ideas, and I think it's for all of us to take that debate forward to see how Wales can lead the way in terms of how we approach renewable energy and energy sources in the future.

If I move on to community projects, given the interest in that area, our Local Energy service has pioneered an approach of direct loans to projects that were deemed too risky by the commercial lenders, enabling the construction of community-owned generation, including Awel Aman Tawe’s windfarm, and bringing other renewable developments into community ownership. Our support has enabled community groups to become socially focused developers in regions across Wales. I think concern was raised in terms of how community groups can be sure they aren’t, for want of a better phrase than the one Simon Thomas used, ripped off. The Welsh Government does support community energy projects directly with technical and commercial expertise, and we already have done so through our Local Energy service to help them to understand the commercial and financial models and make decisions on this basis. Indeed, Siân Gwenllian mentioned three community projects in her contribution, all of which, I understand, have had Welsh Government support.

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs has set a target for 70 per cent of the electricity consumed in Wales to be from renewable sources by 2030. She also set a target for 1 GW of renewable electricity capacity in Wales to be locally owned by 2030, and an expectation for all new renewable energy projects coming forward from 2020 to have an element of local ownership. We believe that local ownership retains benefit locally. We recently undertook a call for evidence to underpin this position and better understand what is needed to help people in Wales to become more energy independent. We’ll be publishing the responses this summer.

I’m aware I’m running out of time now, so I will quickly round up, but it will be no surprise to Members on the benches opposite that we are working with Plaid Cymru on the energy atlas, and we think that this will be core to delivering the right energy future for Wales, providing evidence and insight to support local decision makers to get on and make things happen. We believe that our focus on support for innovation and local action is the right way to position Wales for a prosperous energy future.

Thank you. Can I now call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I can respond very briefly to the debate and first of all just put on record that, as I've mentioned the tidal lagoon, I am a community shareholder in the tidal lagoon, like many other people have been. It's not a declarable interest, I have to say; it's not that big. But it does show that many hundreds of people in the area have put their own money where the Westminster Government is not prepared to go. We believe in Wales. We believe in our natural resources. We believe this can work. We believe this technology will be there for hundreds of years to come, and we should utilise it. I very much hope that the Westminster Government ultimately will, yes, respond to the offer from this Government, and also respond to the widespread support for the tidal lagoon in Wales.

Can I thank everyone who took part in the debate, particularly those who supported me? [Laughter.] But, also, I'd just emphasise how important I think Bethan and Siân's examples of community investment and community ideas are—and the Aberdeen example is an excellent way of showing how this could be knitted together.

Both Llyr and Mick Antoniw have talked about the fact that this is, in effect, big business. There's a lot of money in energy, and that profit is going elsewhere. It's not coming to me. [Laughter.] That profit at the moment, ironically, is often taken by other Governments who have invested in Wales, and not our own communities. It's the same for Arriva trains and other things as well, of course. So, we do need a better approach to this, and that's why I can't agree with David Melding's position. I understand where he comes from, but his Conservative Government has been nationalising rail left, right and centre—or at least east, west and middle—and the ideology has to crumble away when you're faced with the reality.

What we have in energy—let's just step away from slightly ideological positions here—is that you need some kind of private rigour there to ensure that efficiency is driven through the process, but if you haven't got that, then you have to have something that recognises the market has failed when you've got high energy prices in an energy-rich country. So, you have to have intervention.

If I can conclude by turning to the Cabinet—. Not the Cabinet Secretary, sorry; the Minister, who's speaking for the Cabinet Secretary. Her intervention—I agree with a lot of what she said, but she did say that the consultation refused this idea. Well, yes, 38 out of 72 people said 'no' to this idea. That's a Brexit kind of result, really. But very importantly, what did the consultation also say was missing? What it said was missing is: collective market failures, e.g. running schemes to tackle fuel poverty, encourage renewable generation, close the gaps between local production and local consumption—the Ynni Ogwen model—continue to prioritise demand reduction, including through better energy efficiency and behaviour change, and ensure the energy system and transition works for the citizens of Wales and aligns with the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Some of these objectives could be advanced by an all-Wales energy services company, but maybe not by an energy supply company. In light of the fact of what the Minister said, are these things actually being done, and doesn't she actually think we do need some national strategy to achieve this?

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore we defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.