The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary on Economy and Infrastructure—the public local inquiry into the M4 at Newport. I call on Ken Skates to make the statement.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today I am updating Members on the M4 corridor around Newport project. A solution to the long-standing problems on the M4 around Newport has been set out. It includes a new section of motorway to the south, often referred to as ‘the black route’, as well as complementary measures including reclassification of the existing M4 around Newport. This would complement the metro to deliver an efficient integrated transport system in south Wales. Both the M4 relief road and the metro are hugely important to our vision of a fully integrated transport system. We have held exhibitions to help local people understand the land plans and matters such as changes to side roads, as well as setting out the wider economic assessments and environmental mitigation proposals. We published the draft statutory Orders, environmental information and associated reporting on the project in March, giving everyone the opportunity to register their objection, comment or support for the project. All the responses have been carefully reviewed. There are significant issues that must be given careful consideration before I reach a final decision on whether to proceed with construction.

I am mindful of the importance that this process is fully transparent and carried out with the involvement of the diverse range of stakeholders. I have therefore decided that a public local inquiry should be held. An independent inspector will review the need for the scheme and consider all environmental, social and economic factors. They will hear evidence and examine the technical experts as well as hearing from supporters and objectors. The published business case will be considered in light of the current and future levels of traffic, to ensure that the investment would represent value for money. The historic consideration of options will be examined, as will all alternative routes proposed by objectors, including the much referred to ‘blue route’. This will robustly test the merits of suggested alternatives and give an independent view on whether the proposed scheme offers the most sustainable, long-term solution. This will all be carried out in a public forum, allowing open and transparent scrutiny, before the inspector provides vital feedback to inform a final decision on whether to proceed to construction.

The inquiry is set to commence this autumn at the Lysaght Institute in Newport, with a pre-inquiry meeting taking place on 18 July. The inquiry itself is expected to take around five months, following which the inspector will produce a report and recommendations to me. In the event that the Welsh Ministers decide to proceed with the scheme, following detailed consideration of the report and recommendations of the inspector, the new section of M4 could be opened by autumn 2021.

Opposition spokesperson, Dai Lloyd.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure for his statement, and, indeed, welcome the statement in its entirety? Now is not the time to be speaking at length and arguing about which route is best, because the Minister has outlined a way forward in terms of this complex issue, which has been ongoing now for many years. The truth is that we do need a solution. I don’t think that doing nothing is an option for people in that local area or the businesses of south Wales, either.

Therefore, I welcome the intention to look at a broad range of options in an entirely independent inquiry. And I would throw into the mix, too, the concept of abolishing the Severn bridge tolls, as we are going to look at all options possible. I would add that as an option that also causes congestion and problems locally.

As I’ve said already, I don’t think the status quo is an option and I welcome the way forward set out here, particularly in having heard of the experiences of many people—those in favour and against the various routes. The Minister will be aware, of course, of the doubts that many people have about the environmental impacts of the various options before us.

Now, of course, his Government is in favour of one particular route, the black route. We, on these benches, are in favour of another, the blue route. And, in having this entirely independent inquiry that will look at all of the options, as you’ve already said, what assurance can you give us that the same kind of detail, thoroughness and transparency is given when you’re considering the blue route along with the black route? Are you going to treat all of the options equally, giving them the same weighting, to avoid any possible criticism that you may be favouring and continuing to favour and bringing influence to bear on an independent inquiry to come out in favour of the black route? I am seeking an assurance that, when you state that the whole range of options on the table are going to be looked at in detail, that that is going to be the case in reality. Thank you very much.

I’d like to begin by thanking the Member for his contribution and say that I also share his view that doing nothing is not an option. However, the inspector will look at the option of doing nothing and, indeed, the impact of that, moving forward.

In terms of the Severn bridge tolls, well, part of the inquiry as well will be to scrutinise the traffic-modelling work that is taking place, including looking at what the likely impact of reducing or, indeed, abolishing the Severn tolls would have on congestion and on the use of the M4 motorway.

If we just touch on the history, because I think it’s only fair in reference to the blue route if we just reflect on the fact that work on the M4 has been debated and discussed now for 25 years. It’s time that we examined thoroughly, in an independent, transparent way, all options. Now, in terms of the blue route, strategic studies have shown that that particular route will provide very little relief to the M4, resulting in continued problems on the motorway, whilst also worsening problems on local roads. Three variants of the blue route were previously considered, estimated to cost between £600 million and £800 million, dependent on the scope—far higher than the proposer’s estimate and offering extremely low value for money, given the limited benefits. However, I am mindful of the continued interest in this alternative, and so, to address this, a fresh analysis of the blue route is being carried out and will be published prior to the inquiry. This will look again at scope, cost and traffic modelling and allow people to present their views to the inquiry inspector.

In terms of the possible routes, I think it’s clear, from many people’s views, and certainly mine, that the blue route is, I would argue, a non-starter for many reasons; some of practicality, others in terms of the population centres that it would travel through. You’ve referred to some of the issues already. As far as the black route is concerned, of course, there are major environmental issues, as well as issues around the predict-and-provide model of building roads. So, with that sort of background, Secretary, could you assure me that this inquiry will be able to look at the metro system in terms of its likely effect on traffic on the M4 and its ability to achieve modal shift? Obviously, if we had park-and-ride facilities that were well placed and effective—I think many people are talking of something like a 20 per cent reduction in volumes of traffic on the M4 coming from modal shift from the metro system. There are other ways of achieving modal shift as well, of course, and ways of better traffic management. So, I wonder whether you could assure me that, in looking at the likely future volumes and levels of traffic, which you referred to in your statement, the inspector will be able to look at the metro and other ways of achieving modal shift in relation to those likely volumes and levels of traffic.

Finally, I wonder whether you could say a little bit about the £500 million early borrowing facility. I realise that the First Minister obviously has a key role in these matters as well, Secretary, but I think it’s vital that if you do come to an informed view as to the best way forward in terms of the traffic problems on the M4, following this inquiry and further consideration, that this early borrowing facility should be available for whatever the Welsh Government considers the best way forward. That isn’t currently the position, and I would argue that, in line with devolution and the Respect agenda, it should be available for whatever the Welsh Government considers as the best solution. Would you support that?

Can I thank the Member and also say that I recognise his powerful advocacy of active travel over many years? Now, in terms of modal shift, it’s a crucial element of the inquiry being able to drill into all of the data and the predicted flow of traffic. The M4 project is being developed, as I’ve already said, together with our plans for the metro and electrification. Together they can deliver a long-term sustainable and integrated transport system. They will also benefit from planned park-and-ride facilities as well as park-and-cycle schemes. For example, new M4 junctions are being planned to co-ordinate with existing and planned public transport measures, such as train stations and park-and-ride facilities. I should focus in on some of the data that have already been published, which really draw quite a stark contrast between doing nothing and constructing a relief road. The 2013 M4 project ‘Public Transport Overview’ report identified that, even if there was to be a 100 per cent increase in public transport usage across the Newport area, this would lead to less than a 5 per cent decrease in traffic flows on the M4 around Newport. That said, active travel is going to be crucially important to managing traffic and to managing congestion in the future in our towns and in our cities right across Wales. So, I’m very keen to work with Sustrans in order to maximise the potential of the M4 to create park-and-cycle opportunities for commuters in order to make sure that Wales becomes a more healthy and active nation.

In terms of some of the environmental issues that the Member has touched on, with the preferred black route that the Government has proposed, more than half of that route is on brownfield land. Less than 2 per cent of the area of the Gwent levels SSSI is actually needed, and impacts would be mitigated. Presiding Officer, I am able to say today that we’ve identified £45 million within the project, which will be spent on environmental measures, not just to mitigate the impact of the proposed black route but, indeed, to enhance the environment.

Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? It is, of course, my view and the view of the Welsh Conservatives that diggers should be in the ground without delay, and of course I entirely agree with the view of others that doing nothing is not an option. Now, millions of pounds have been spent already on the public consultation and the exhibitions. You mentioned in your statement that all the responses have been carefully reviewed, but it doesn’t state in your statement what your view is of those responses. There’s no mention of that. I wonder if you could perhaps outline how those responses have influenced your views before you made the statement today.

The environmental concerns, of course, on the black route in particular, have got to raise concerns across the Chamber. I won’t rehearse those today, but only a few weeks ago, 10 charities publicly voiced their concerns to the Welsh Government with regard to their preferred route, claiming that the project would represent ecological destruction on an unprecedented scale, and of course Natural Resources Wales have also objected in similar ways. Now, given those concerns, and considering the recent public input regarding the draft orders and environmental statements, I wonder what the Government is doing to alleviate those concerns ahead of the public inquiry.

Now, you said in your statement that you’ll be giving careful consideration and reaching a final decision on whether you will proceed with construction. Can I just ask for some clarity on that? Will the Government be going into the public inquiry with its officials and its legal team on the basis of promoting the black route as the best and the preferred route, or will it be approaching the public inquiry in a neutral position, as has perhaps been suggested? In regards to the public inquiry itself, you have said that it will take around five months. Now, I want that public inquiry to be as comprehensive as possible, but I do wonder whether five months will delay works beginning. So, I wonder if you do have views on whether that is the right time for the public inquiry to take, whether a lesser time would be more appropriate, and whether, indeed, that is your decision or the decision of the inspector.

You’ve also detailed where the public inquiry will take place, the venue. Now of course it will cover a large area of south Wales and I wonder whether you would agree to extending it, perhaps, if there was that call—to have the public inquiry meeting in other venues apart from the venue you’ve detailed.

Now, I’ll also take this: you also mentioned that the public inquiry will take five months. I wonder if you could tell me how long it will take for the inspector, between the end of the public inquiry to the time he reports to you. How long do you anticipate that time will take? Is it indeed up to you how long that takes, or is there a prescribed time? How long will it take for you from having that report on your desk to making the final decision?

You’ve also mentioned that the project would be complemented by the metro, and that’s reassuring to hear. Previously, perhaps they haven’t been working together as they should have done. Clearly, the metro will naturally affect traffic flows on both sides—on the M4 relief road and vice versa. Will the public inquiry therefore take into consideration the relationship between the two projects? Finally, can I say as well that there is concern from north, mid and west Wales on the amount of money that would be spent on the potential black route, so can I ask you to perhaps outline what consideration you expect the public inquiry to take in regard to the value for money for your preferred route?

Can I thank Russell George for his questions and say that, in terms of, first of all, the consultation that has taken place, I’d be very happy to publish data concerning the responses? In brief, the inquiry will look at the responses to the consultation and the exhibitions that took place between September 2015 and March 2016. In brief, the consultation resulted in a total of 192 supporter submissions, compared to 267 bespoke objections. But if you actually look at the numbers that stem from within Wales, that came from Welsh-based residents, the number of supporters was 143 compared to 118 objections. I will publish these data. The largest objections, in terms of volume, came from organised campaigns including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Woodland Trust. It’s for that reason that I’m keen to meet with those wildlife groups as soon as possible to discuss a range of mitigation projects that wildlife groups would like to see delivered as part of the M4 relief road project.

In terms of the timescale that we’re looking at, three-to-five months is what we estimate for the actual period of being able to carry out the inquiry. If the inspector wished to take less than five months, and four months or three months were sufficient, that would be up to the independent inspector. Likewise, I’d have no objection to the inspector taking meetings outside of the centre of Newport, if the inspector so wished. This is very much in the hands of an independent inspector and I wish that inspector to have every opportunity to liaise and to discuss this very important project with the people whom it will affect.

In terms of north Wales, in terms of mid Wales and in terms of west Wales, it’s absolutely crucial that the M4 and the metro in south-east Wales, and indeed the metro across south Wales, form part of a national infrastructure plan, and, for that reason, I’m very keen to progress with work. We’ve already begun in Newtown with the bypass around Newtown, but I’m very keen to progress with work right across Wales that benefits people in every community in all parts of the country, whether that be with the development of a business case for the third Menai crossing, the Caernarfon bypass, or significant upgrades to the A55 and the A494 that will amount to more than £200 million, and of course the A40 as well. I want to ensure that the M4 and the metro are not seen in isolation but as part of a fully national and integrated transport plan. Indeed, a plan that will incorporate travel and integrated travel just across the border. That will be of particular significance to the north-east Wales metro proposals.

If I can just touch on the actual inquiry itself—the Member asked about the time frame. Draft statutory orders and an environmental statement were published in March of this year. It’s my intention to have the public local inquiry commenced in autumn of this year and I would hope that by summer of next year, pending receipt of the inspector’s report, a decision can be made on whether to make the orders and proceed with construction. The spring of 2018 would mark the commencement of the motorway works and I would hope that, by the autumn of 2021, the work would be completed and the relief road opened.

We’ll be proceeding to the public local inquiry with a firm view that the black route is the preferred option. However, the public local inquiry is very much like a court. An independent inspector will hear evidence from us, Welsh Government and our technical experts, as well as from objectors and from supporters. The inspector will examine all alternatives suggested by objectors, including the blue route, as I’ve already said, and the inspector will then make a recommendation to Ministers on whether to proceed to construction.

I should point out as well that the Planning Inspectorate appoints the independent inspector; it is not a Welsh Government appointment. And, at the inquiry, the independent inspector would consider an entire range of questions, including the need for the scheme; the land-take proposed to be compulsory purchased; the proposals for changes to side roads; and reclassification of the existing M4. The inspector will consider environmental surveys that have been carried out; potential environmental impacts across an entire variety of issues, including ecological and archaeological and including noise issues and visual impact; as well as the mitigation measures that are being proposed. The inspector will also consider the impact on affected stakeholders, such as Associated British Ports, Tata and, of course, residents. And the inspector will consider the application of Welsh Government policy in decision making—and I know that Members have raised it in the past—such as the application of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Presiding Officer, the inspector will also scrutinise the traffic demand for the scheme and the traffic modelling work carried out on it. Finally, the inspector will consider alternatives proposed by objectors, regardless of whether they have already been considered and rejected. For example, other routes, the widening of existing roads, greater expenditure on public transport and, of course, doing nothing will all be considered by the inspector.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Can I first thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive statement on this very important project? Representations have been made by Newport ports authority with regard to the black route and its negative impact on its operations. Does he have any possible alterations to the route that might take into account their concerns before the public inquiry actually takes place? And also, given that, perhaps, three quarters of all Irish exports to the EU or UK pass along this route, will he explore the possibility of part of the cost being borne by the Irish Government?

Can I thank the Member for his question and for his kind contribution and comments? The port’s concerns will, of course, be fully considered by the independent inspector, and the independent inspector will, in turn, be able to scrutinise some of the claims and, indeed, all of the concerns that not just the port have been able to present, but other businesses and residents in that part of Wales. In terms of allocating the cost of the project to the Irish Government, I’m not convinced that that would be particularly well received or could be done, but I will raise this matter with officials and check whether that would be possible.

It’s interesting to hear the argument from David Rowlands, which is an argument for staying in the EU, because of course if the M4 is considered a trans-European network, then there may be some way in which we could get some contribution from the Irish. But, anyway, putting that to one side, I welcome very much the rigour, the transparency and the caution with which the Cabinet Secretary is approaching this very, very large decision, and ensuring that we have value for money and we have the ability to pay back any sums that we would need to borrow. I think the world has moved on in the last 25 years since we started talking about the M4, and we now have the metro project on the table, and so I’m particularly glad that the Cabinet Secretary has included the metro and the impact it will have—if, of course, it goes ahead as a result of us remaining in the EU, then I think that’s incredibly important as a way of seeing which is the best way forward that will actually deliver the relief of congestion and any barriers there are to economic development. I just wanted to ask the Cabinet Secretary whether you will be considering the whole-system approach that Bristol is taking to integrated transport management, using an item that we all carry with us most of the time, which is the mobile phone, which emits a signal as to exactly when people are leaving home to travel to work, to travel to school, and how that can be used to map the integrated travel plans of all our citizens in light of the increasing numbers who are going to be living in the Cardiff capital region.

Can I thank Jenny Rathbone for her keen interest in this subject and say that, first of all, ticketless travel is overtaking integrated tickets at quite a pace and certainly, it is something that we are looking at as part and parcel of the development of the metro? I also recently raised this with the Secretary of State for Wales in terms of the potential to be able to remove some of the congestion at the toll stations on the Severn crossing—being able to utilise free-flow technology.

Now, the Member is right to say that I approach this with caution, but this is not a question of whether I or the Welsh Government want a particular route, it’s a question of need, and it’s my view that we need a solution to the congestion that we see on the M4, and it’s my view that the best option is the black route. We need it because, every single day, 100,000 trips are taken on the M4 and, with the black route, 10 minutes for every single one of those trips could be given back to the economy, given back to the people of Wales. In total, that amounts to something in the region of 694 days of people’s lives being saved from sitting on the M4. That has to be good for economic productivity; it’s got to be good for families and for individuals.

We know as well that the payback of the costs for the proposed route are somewhere in the region of 3:1. That is very good for the economy of Wales, especially when you consider that many of the companies that will be delivering these projects are Welsh based. We know as well that, as part of the work that would be committed, local workers would fill roles, and 20 per cent of the total labour costs from employment of new-entrant trainees and apprenticeships will provide hope and opportunities for many people, not just in south Wales but from right across Wales.

Over the course of construction, there would be 3,000 jobs filled and that equates to around 700 people employed on the scheme every month. So, not only will the relief road be able to deliver, in our view, major economic benefits during the construction phase, in the long term the M4 relief road will be able to give access to employment sites with the capacity to cater for something in the region of 15,000 jobs, and I’d be very keen to work with the Minister for Skills and Science to ensure that not only do we have the right infrastructure in place to serve economic development and a flourishing economy in Wales, but that we also have the right skills available to the people to be able to maximise opportunities for themselves and their families.

Can I return to the issue raised by John Griffiths of the impact of the proposed metro for south-east Wales on the future levels of traffic in the region? The construction of a similar transport system for Bordeaux, which Welsh fans will have been able to see at first-hand recently, of course, has actually reduced traffic levels by 40 per cent since 2005. Now, if we were even able to achieve half of that in south-east Wales, it would substantially undermine the rationale that the Government has produced in terms of its preferred black route. So, can we have an independent assessment of the impact of the metro on future traffic levels? And can the Secretary also explain the interrelationship between the inquiry that he has outlined and also the parallel process with Natural Resources Wales, which have to grant a licence, of course, under the habitats directive—because there are European protected species present—for this development to proceed? They’ve said in their own objection that they are not persuaded that the conditions necessary for that licence are currently met. If that doesn’t change, can he confirm that, whatever the inquiry says, he won’t be able to grant permission for the black route to proceed?

Can I thank the Member for his questions, and say first of all that the metro and the M4 are complementary projects? We know that the metro programme is designed to be able to take people between the Valleys and between the major urban centres such as Cardiff, whereas the M4 caters for people who are coming in and out of Wales and travelling in an east-west direction. One is a vertical solution, one is a horizontal solution; together, they form a package that will deliver economic prosperity for the whole of the nation.

Now, in terms of alternatives, for example, we know that main line electrification will provide less than 1 per cent reduction across the M4 in peak travel times, and therefore we cannot solely rely on rail and metro solutions to alleviate the current congestion that’s on the M4. But it will be for the independent inspector to scrutinise and carry out the assessment of the M4 proposals, including the predicted travel flow in the years to come. It’s work that we’ve done, but it’s for the independent inspector to ensure that that work is fully scrutinised on an independent basis.

And in terms of the environmental work—well, development work—one of the reasons that we’ve had an envelope of spend to develop this programme is because development work has been essential to comply with UK and European environmental legislation, such as the environmental impact assessment regulations and the habitats directive—utterly imperative. And it had to be done to follow the statutory process of the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

I was particularly struck by two justifications when reading the Welsh Government’s supporting papers for the black route. First, that it is already a trans-European network, and those papers stated that a new road was required to bring it up to the required standards. So, isn’t that, therefore, a cost of EU membership? Second, that reclassification of the existing M4 could allow it to be used to promote the goal of increasing walking and cycling. Is that credible, given the nature of the road? Finally, the First Minister previously stated that continuing high tolls on the Severn bridges could be used to fund the black route. Is that still the position of the Welsh Government?

Well, can I thank the Member for his question, and say, yes, it’s trans-European network? I wouldn’t consider it an unnecessary cost to actually bring this road up to a position where we’ll be able to deliver on the hopes and ambitions of the people of Wales, by having a road that not only can we use in a way that, I’m afraid, the current one can’t be used—you can’t rely on smooth and swift travel along it—but also, in terms of our contact with European partners, we need a major trans-European network, to ensure that our exports can get out of the country, whether it’s to Ireland or to mainland Europe, and I think that’s absolutely vital. So, I’d consider it necessary spending, not on the basis of being able to continue, if you like, giving it the tag of having trans-European network status, but actually to ensure that it delivers economic prosperity for the people of Wales.

In terms of his other queries and questions, toll road costs are, of course, a matter for the UK Government, which I’ve been discussing with the Secretary of State. Our talks have concerned the possibility of abolishing or reducing the toll charges. Until we know what the decision is going to be on that, we won’t be in a position to be able to allocate charges for any project, let alone the M4 build.

Minister, I welcome the fact you’re going to take a fresh look at the number of options available for the congestion on the M4. Would you also look at the way that these decisions are calculated? Because, in the light of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the increased climate emissions target, we need to take into account the full range of costs and benefits from any option. I was concerned to hear you mention the time-saving benefits that form the basis of the cost-benefit ratios that are used to underpin these schemes. For example, the current formula advantages car journeys, and the time saved from those to the economy, against, for example, journeys on public transport. The economists reckon that bus passengers are worth less to our economy than car passengers are, and that that’s the basis on which the figures are used to justify cost savings. So, as part of the spirit of looking afresh at the options, will you also consider the formulae used, which are often used to justify these decisions?

Can I thank the Member for his question, and, again, his keen interest in this very important subject? And, yes, I have an open mind in terms of how we model any sort of economic equation and formula, and I’d be more than willing to look at how we can better understand and scrutinise any models that are presented for infrastructure projects. I’m more than happy to do that.

Well, as has already been mentioned, of course, we now realise that the Welsh Government is accountable to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which was world-leading according to the previous Government, and a piece of legislation, therefore, that should lead to change that would be world-changing. And many of us can’t understand how, under the duties of that Act, the black route has come as far as it has without being thrown to one side. But, that’s a matter of opinion, I suppose.

I do have two questions specifically. First of all, as these duties are now imposed on the Welsh Government to look at all decisions in the context of sustainable development, and to balance the various elements in a meaningful way, can you give us some flavour of how this public inquiry will differ now, given these new duties, compared to any similar exercise that may have taken place a few years ago, so that we can understand the practical difference that the well-being of future generations Act is making to the way in which the Welsh Government makes its decisions?

Secondly, you mentioned previously that you had asked for some work to be done to look again at the blue route. Can you expand upon that and tell us what exactly you’ve asked for, and can you give us some more details as to the scope of the work that you requested?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions, and say that we’re very proud of our legislation to protect the well-being and the prospects of future generations. And of course, within the legislation, there is a crucial objective to ensure that we have sustainable, economic growth within our country; that we have more equal communities, and a more equal society. In order to do that, we have to ensure that there are better jobs closer to home, and where those jobs are not literally closer to home, people are able to access them more swiftly. I’m fully aware of the duties under the well-being Act to improve the social, the economic and the environmental, and indeed the cultural well-being of Wales, and I will be mindful of these duties in making the decision on the M4 project, as I will be on decisions concerning the metro and our wider transport networks right across Wales, whether it be on the A55, the A494, the A483, or the A5—all of our trunk road network, and all of our transport infrastructure.

A report was published in March, which considered how the M4 project aligns with the goals of the well-being Act, and the M4 project would generate opportunities to improve, as I say, the economic prosperity of the region, as well as to help create a healthier and more cohesive community. The potential impacts of the scheme are balanced with opportunities that align with the well-being goals as far as they are currently developed, and, therefore, the scheme is considered to align with the Welsh Government’s principles of sustainable development. However, having said that, the inquiry will review compliance of the proposals with the well-being of future generations Act. And, in terms of the further detailed work on the blue route, I’d be more than happy to publish what that work entails for all Members to be able to scrutinise it as well.

And finally, Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement on the next stage of the proposed M4 relief road? It’s a subject that elicits strong views as we’ve all heard today, and I do not doubt for one second the sincerity of those views. I’m pleased that the public inquiry has been announced early in the fifth Assembly, as I want to strongly encourage maximum public engagement with the process. Could the Cabinet Secretary assure me that every reasonable action will be taken to widely publicise the inquiry, and that it’s made easily accessible to all interested parties? We need to capture and consider the wide-ranging views held by the public.

As a regular user of the M4, and a resident of Newport, I know the reality for my community and I fully understand the importance of this to Wales. The stretch of road between junction 24 and junction 29 is the most heavily trafficked section in Wales. Many who enter via the Severn bridge may well miss the sign ‘Croeso’ and be welcomed instead by ones that say ‘Queues ahead’. Our current motorway around the Brynglas tunnels is not fit for purpose, and I’m sure if we asked many people to do a word association with Brynglas tunnels, most would say ‘jam’, ‘bottleneck’ and ‘traffic chaos’. That’s certainly not what I want Newport to be known for, and that’s definitely not what I want the main artery into Wales to be known for. The reality of this situation means that an M4 relief road is essential, and I believe the nettle should have been grasped many years ago. I’m pleased, in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement, that alternatives will be looked at, but also that the option of doing nothing will also be looked at.

So, I’d just like to finally say that the problem will not go away if we bury our heads. Inaction is not an option. Newport cannot sustain a future of gridlock traffic hell and pollution, and Wales cannot be stuck with a blockage of our main economic artery.

I’d like to thank the Member and say I wholeheartedly agree with her. In terms of ensuring that people have an opportunity to contribute to the inquiry, I think a lot of people are probably somewhat tired of hearing politicians in any environment debate the merits of any given project, and would like to be able to contribute to that discussion themselves, knowing that there is an independent inspector overseeing that process. So, I’m very keen, like the Member, to ensure that as many people as possible take part in this inquiry, and, for what it’s worth, I’ll ensure that Welsh Government promotes it as much as possible and encourages people and organisations and groups, and all stakeholders to contribute, whether they are opposed to it, whether they are neutral, or whether they are in support of it.

In terms of the impact that the M4 around Newport has on the country, the Member is right to say that this is a nettle that has been avoided for some time. The problem has been there not just for the past few years, but for the past few decades and it’s time that we get to grips with it, we grasp the nettle and we solve the problem. The M4 is a key artery in and out of the country for more than 70 per cent of the population of Wales and, indeed, it’s crucial for our economic well-being as well. It’s essential that we get to grips with the congestion that we see in and around Newport and ensure that there is a modern motorway network for south Wales that is fit for the future.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.