The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the M4 corridor around Newport project. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Lywydd. This statement updates Members on a delay to the M4 corridor around Newport public local inquiry as a direct result of actions taken by the UK Government.

Due to the short time frame until the planned inquiry start date, I decided to release a written statement yesterday to advise all stakeholders as soon as possible. As I set out to Members here on 21 June, it is vital that this process is fully transparent. In this spirit, it is right and proper that this matter is discussed with Members at the earliest opportunity.

The Department for Transport has, without consultation, introduced revised methodology to their new forecasting for traffic growth, referred to as TEMPro 7. As I want to ensure that decisions on the M4 project are based upon the most accurate, robust and up-to-date information, I must now allow sufficient time for a review of reporting that supports the published proposals issued in March 2016 to be carried out.

Dependent on the outcome of my review, the inquiry, which was due to commence on 1 November, will start no later than 31 March next year. In the interests of fairness and transparency, reporting on this matter will be shared with all stakeholders as soon as reasonably possible. The timetable of an inquiry would be as I previously set out and last around five months and examine all aspects of the M4 project, as well as all suggested alternatives.

I am well aware of the range of views towards the project. An inquiry would allow these views to be heard, and outside of that process I am keen to continue to explore all opportunities for reducing negative impacts and maximising cross-cutting benefits of this major investment.

The UK Government has already expressed its desire to see work on the M4 project start as soon as possible, so it is hugely disappointing that the Department for Transport failed to engage with us on these revisions before they were introduced, forcing this regrettable delay. Whilst we push forward with our metro plans for the north and the south, the long-standing and continued problems associated with the M4 around Newport need a solution that delivers, for the long term, integrated and sustainable transport systems.

Assessments to date indicate that our proposed M4 project is the only reasonable solution, but it is only right and proper that the proposals are tested in light of the most up-to-date information available to ensure that we deliver the right choice for the people of Wales.

The problem has not gone away. We have made a strong commitment to deliver a sustainable, long-term solution to the chronic traffic problems of this stretch of the M4. Subject to my review and inquiry approval, the M4 corridor around Newport project can still be delivered in 2021.

Dai Lloyd.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, but I must say that this isn’t good news. As you’ve already said, you are extremely disappointed. May I also declare that I’m exceptionally disappointed? In your previous response, you alluded to the fact that some of us weren’t here in the last Assembly term, but I was here in the one before that, and I can assure you that we were discussing the M4 problems at that time. We were also discussing the need to electrify the railway line to Swansea. Well, nothing seems to be moving on here.

I understand the announcement, but why do we have to follow London? Explain to me and everybody else who was stuck in a queue around Newport this morning: why do we have to wait for a decision from London that has just landed on your desk without warning and you have to respond by delaying? Why do we have to follow the London line on this? Basically, could you say how this happened? How did this occur? People tell us—the people who want an independent Wales—that we are stronger because we are attached to England, because there’s collaboration and there are two Governments, one at each end of the M4, that are able to collaborate, co-ordinate and every other ‘co-’. Well, obviously, it’s not happening, so we must ask: how do we benefit by being stuck to England?

Emotions are running rather high when you see this kind of decision, because people have been waiting years for an improvement, or for something to be done about the M4. I know your black route—of course, there’ll be no money left if we pursue that one—the blue route, and, of course, you have a review. You’d imagine that the review would look at all the pressures and how to quantify things and there would be no need for further delay. People have been waiting and waiting for years.

In passing, as a party, we announced our national infrastructure commission for Wales yesterday. I know that we have actually agreed on NICW, but I have to say that our NICW is quite different to yours. We wish to see a powerful body that is able to get investment, that can attract funding and operate at arm’s length from Government and stay in the public sector. It would be able to provide an infrastructure such as the new M4, on whichever route we all agree on ultimately. It’s time to act and time for action.

As I said, there’s been delay and there are a number of things that haven’t been done over the years, such as addressing the problem of the M4 around Newport and such as the electrification of the railway to Swansea. We can discuss this ad infinitum, but, from your point of view, you believe that we are stronger in that we have to listen to London. I would disagree with you. I believe it’d be better for us to grasp the issue ourselves and go for it, but, of course, you have a different vision to me in that respect. But, please, explain to me how this current arrangement strengthens us when the people of Wales are still waiting for things to happen. Thank you.

I’d like to thank Dai Lloyd for his questions. It’s clear that neither of us are happy at all with what we’ve learnt this week. But I imagine that motorists who regularly use the M4 are absolutely furious by this further delay—an unnecessary delay and avoidable delay. Had we not chosen to defer the commencement of the M4 public local inquiry to, at the latest, the end of March next year, then, in all likelihood, the inspector would’ve adjourned the inquiry himself.

In terms of the process—and I do think that Members, and, I think, the public, deserve an explanation for this. Let me be clear: I do not think there’s any conspiracy on the part of the UK Government against Wales in this regard, but I do think there is incompetence. What normally happens, what is normal practice, is that we will be informed a year before data are published—a year. That enables us to then scrutinise—because this is an intense, immensely complicated process—the new data. It also affects all English regions, and therefore, Highways England. They are in a similar position to us; they were given just weeks before the data were published. We were given three days’ notice—it’s normally a year—and without consultation on the changes as well. Yes, we received an indication in the spring that there would be an update to TEMPro data, but the Department for Transport failed to engage with us on the scope of the changes.

As I’ve said, for previous revisions to traffic data, the Department for Transport have consulted with us around a year in advance. I do not believe it’s acceptable to give us three days’ notice in full knowledge of the consequences to an entire region of the UK. Normally, the relationship is a healthy one, but, in this instance, something has gone wrong. I wish to know what went wrong. So, I’ll be meeting with the Secretary of State, as my colleague the Cabinet Secretary has already mentioned, next month.

In terms of the relationship that we have with the UK Government, I do believe that we are stronger together as a country. That said, we have to ensure that decisions that are taken by the Department for Transport, or, for that matter, any other department in the UK Government, respect what is happening in Wales, and the time frame that projects—major projects such as the M4—are operating to.

The Member highlights the need for electrification to Swansea—absolutely; I agree entirely. And, again, I would state that, in the past, Wales has not received its fair share in investment through Network Rail. That must change too. And we must have those choice funding programmes within control period 6 agreed to by Network Rail, so that we have a fully integrated system—a system that actually is fit for the twenty-first century, not just in south Wales, but in north Wales and everywhere between as well.

I will first of all say that I very much welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s early statement yesterday to us, and it was extremely helpful, I think, to allow Members to digest the statement a day before you make the statement to the Chamber. I very much hope that that’s a model, Cabinet Secretary, that you’ll continue with, and, in fact, that other Cabinet colleagues will learn from that good practice.

If I look at your statement today, Cabinet Secretary, you’ve said that you’re disappointed that the Department for Transport failed to engage with you on these revisions before they were introduced. Now, the Department for Transport has said that it made it clear to your officials at the start of this year that they would be updating projections. Now, notwithstanding your answers to Dai Lloyd, which I heard, I would ask you, Cabinet Secretary: are your officials keeping you up to date in this regard? But, regardless of who told what when, the information on the revised methodology was made public, as I understand it, in July, months ago. If that’s not the case, I’d like to understand that, I genuinely would. But I would ask when you became aware of this change—I think you mentioned three or four days ago---just for clarification. But I would say, you know—I don’t quite understand, Cabinet Secretary, why your officials didn’t pick this up in July when the information was made public, and I would have thought that would have been common practice. To me, this does raise, I think, the issue—the very important issue—of how well officials are working together between Welsh Government officials and the Department for Transport officials.

It seems to be that there is some breakdown here in communication, and I would ask the same question of the UK Government as well, but it doesn’t seem to me to be beyond realms that officials on both Governments, working on a project, speak on a regular basis to each other. I’m sure you would agree with me on that and you’ve said to the previous speaker that you would be looking into that; I think we’d all be interested in the outcome of that. And I can also ask if the revisions will also affect any other scheme at all across Wales. Will the revised methodology be applied to other pending schemes as well?

You also say in your statement today that you want

‘to ensure that decisions on the M4 project are based upon the most accurate, robust and up-to-date information’ and that seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. You go on to say that you must now allow sufficient time to review, and you go on from there. So, I do want to understand the ‘must’. It’s not a political point here, but what I do want to understand is—. For me, it’s logical, when a project is being developed, that you use the model that’s present at that time. So why does the model at the time not take precedence on this issue? I’m sure that colleagues across this Chamber, and members of the public, as you say, stuck in queues on the M4, will want to understand that as well. Now, if there is a difference in the results of the original and the revised forecasts, when will that be made public? How will it be explained? How will the differences be explained? Will you make this Chamber aware or will this be part of the public inquiry? And how are you going to make this information available to the public as well? Finally, what difference in the forecast would change your plan for the black route? Or perhaps, if I put that question in a different way as well, to what extent will the differences have between the two models to your current plan for change?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions and say at the outset that I actually feared being scolded rather than congratulated for issuing a written statement ahead of giving an oral statement in the Chamber. So, I’m pleased that the Member actually recognised the value in my doing that, and it’s something that I would consider in the future. Again, I’m going to go back to the sequence of events that led to the decision to put back the commencement of the public local inquiry until the end of March next year at the latest. What happened was that, earlier this year, in spring, there was an indication from the Department for Transport officials to my officials that there would be an update to TEMPro data. In spite of my officials’ efforts, unfortunately, Department for Transport officials did not involve them in the case for TEMPro 7, in the development or in any consultation. That’s what caused the delay, because the data that were then produced—and I’ll come on to the actual questions that we’re asking about the methods and the statistics that are being used—raise questions about the business case that we put forward for the black route. TEMPro 7 would have an impact on all major road schemes in terms of the value for money. So, we will have to look at the case for many of our infrastructure schemes. The reason being—and the Member says that the model at the time should be used. That’s absolutely right. But, so too must the data of the moment, not data that are years old. Unfortunately, it appears that part of the problem with the data that are being used in this forecasting, in this modelling, is they do not recognise all of the LDPs that are being submitted. So, unfortunately, it appears that the modelling that has been used—and this is in spite of us being able to say to the Department for Transport, ‘Here are the data, this is what we’re using and this is our model, here are the predicted flows of people, here is the population growth’—unfortunately, they didn’t use those data. I want to know why they didn’t use those data.

More importantly to this project, I need to understand the implications of using data that are not up to date and accurate, because, in terms of the review that’ll have to take place, we will need to assess whether we amend the TEMPro 7 figures to actually take account of the position that we are in as of right now. That work will take place at speed, and, of course, subsequent to the review, I’ll make public the data and our modelling, and I’ll ensure that they are published. I think it’s only fair to everybody involved in this project, both supporters and objectors. It’s only fair that everybody should have the most accurate, up-to-date evidence possible.

I applaud the Cabinet Secretary for issuing his statement at the earliest opportunity, but isn’t there a certain irony that we are applauding him for accelerating a statement about further delays in the project itself? This is more than disappointing. Of course, the inquiry will have to consider the best forecasts that are available, but not all the evidence of the inquiry will relate to traffic forecasts, and I don’t see why the inquiry needs to be delayed for this purpose. It might need to be adjourned at some stage in order to resume later if the forecasts aren’t available at the right time, but, in any event, it would be possible to take evidence and then to have further hearings if any revisions are necessary.

What is vitally necessary is that we get on with this project as quickly as possible. It seems to me, as Dai Lloyd has pointed out, we’ve been talking about this since time immemorial, and the biggest roadblock on the M4 in the last eight years has been the Welsh Government itself, because they could have got on with this years and years ago.

What we know is that the M4 is overcrowded now, and it will get more overcrowded in future. The traffic forecasts are not likely to arrive at the conclusion that the traffic flows that we have today are going to be reduced. Therefore, it seems to me that this is just a further example of obfuscation and delay.

But we could make use of the time now made available to do further work on the blue route, which would be of relevance to the inquiry. We, for our part in UKIP, have extended the hand of friendship to the Government to say that if, at the end of the day, the black route is the only route available, then we will be prepared to make it happen, because the black route is better than no route, but we still prefer the blue route. A proper feasibility study could be done, funded by the Welsh Government. So far, Professor Stuart Cole seems to have been doing it all by himself. I’m going to ask the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, whether he will take advantage of the delay in order to facilitate that.

Can I thank the Member for his questions and say, first and foremost, that we need to be able to convince not just the independent inspector, but also the people of Wales that this hugely important project is necessary? The way that we do that is that we make an evidence-based argument. If we can’t convince the inspector that it’s the case that the current road is over capacity, and if we can’t convince the inspector that the black route is necessary, then we will lose the argument. We will lose the case, and this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be lost. So, it’s absolutely right, given that there are changes in TEMPro 7 that relate to the number of trips made per person, and provides population forecasts, that we take a very close look at what those changes are and whether they are accurate—whether they are sufficiently accurate—to actually justify proceeding with them. I don’t believe, based on what I’ve been able to ascertain so far, that they are sufficiently up to date, but we will need to review them and then proceed based on the most up-to-date data. I really don’t think it would be fair at all to anybody concerned, given the passions that this matter arouses and given the considerable sum of money, to rush into an inquiry based on questionable data. I think we have to reach an evidence-based decision, and I think the inspector would actually agree. Therefore, the inspector would, in all likelihood, wish to adjourn the public local inquiry if we proceeded. But I do recognise that this is hugely frustrating for the 100,000 people plus who travel on the M4 every single day. In 2014, the road was up to 95 per cent full. It’s simply not resilient in times of incidents. We saw it last week, when there was a huge tailback as a consequence of an incident. We saw it this morning, actually, albeit it wasn’t on the M4. But it’s what happens when you don’t have a road network that is resilient.

We know that the black route is considered the best possible option, based on our assessment. In terms of the blue route, I think the Member may be aware that I initiated a fresh assessment of the blue route. So, that’s being looked at again at the inquiry. In terms of the blue route, as it’s been examined so far, and presented so far, I’m afraid that it will provide very little relief to the M4, and also worsen problems on local roads. Given that it would cost between £600 million and £800 million, it would not offer good value for money, especially in a time of limited budgets.

In terms of the new programme, I’d just like to outline the time frame that we’ll operate to now, because I said in my earlier contribution that we still expect to be able to open the relief road in autumn 2021. In March of this year, we published draft statutory orders and an environmental statement. By 31 March next year, pending the current review that’s taking place, the public local inquiry will commence. During the summer of 2017, and pending receipt of an inspector’s report, a decision will be made on whether to make the orders and proceed with construction. If that’s the case, in the spring of 2018 work will begin to build the motorway. I’m mindful of the ongoing statutory process, but there are a number of measures that can be taken to ensure that we meet that autumn 2021 deadline for completion, such as parallel working and additional planning with utility companies to expedite detailed design and construction, and to mitigate the delay caused by the necessary review of new Department for Transport data.

I recognise the difficulty that the UK Government decision has presented the Welsh Government in terms of the M4 project, and appreciate that it is, in the least, regrettable, but can I ask the Cabinet Secretary about the potential knock-on effects? Does this also mean a deferment in terms of the work being able to be done on the A55 and the A494 in north Wales? As the Cabinet Secretary is well aware, the improvements and investment to those roads are not only a priority for Members in the region but for the public alike. The DfT’s revised methodology has the potential to create a lot of concern, and I’d urge the Welsh Government to do all that you can to alleviate and address that concern.

I think the Member is right to raise concerns about the implications of this right across Wales. As I’ve already outlined, there are implications that we must consider. That said, I am determined to proceed with public consultation on the work that is necessary to alleviate pressure on the A55 and the A494 in north Wales. We’ll be proceeding with that consultation in March 2017, so I’m pleased that at least we are able to commit to that work. That work will run concurrently with the public local inquiry for the M4, and it’s still our vision as a Welsh Government to ensure that we have a modern road network that complements an integrated public transport system.

I think the outrage expressed by Neil Hamilton and Dai Lloyd is entirely misplaced. It’s absolutely essential that, if we’re going to go ahead with a really major capital investment, we do so on the basis of accurate information. So, I applaud the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to delay things in order to look at the latest data, ensure that they are accurate, and enable us to make rational decisions. Hopefully, the relocation of the Office for National Statistics to Newport will give us better statistical information in the future, because clearly that is an issue that’s been raised by lots of stakeholders in relation to this and other matters.

I suppose one of the things I want to know is really whether the UK Government is still insisting that we should be going ahead with the M4 project based on inaccurate data, because my understanding is that the latest information provided by the Department for Transport—this TEMPro 7—is forecasting less traffic on the M4 than we have at the moment. Therefore, it’s absolutely essential that we understand whether that’s accurate, and if so, what impact it should have on our future. I am, of course, hoping that these forecasts are not based on a disastrous exit from the European Union, which could lead to a complete tanking of the economy if it’s done in the wrong way, but are instead an assurance that the message that we all need to change our behaviour in the light of climate change, and not be using the car for short journeys but using alternative methods of transport, is being reflected in those forecasts. So, I just wondered if you could clarify: what is the current UK Government’s position, apart from their profound apologies that they haven’t told you that this latest information was coming down the track?

The Member makes a very important point—a crucial point that, when we’re talking about such a huge sum of money, it’s absolutely vital that we invest it on the basis of evidence and on the basis of up-to-date, accurate data. The UK Government has given no indication as to whether we should proceed on the basis of the latest Department for Transport information. I’d be very interested to know whether that’s their position or whether they accept that the data that they’ve provided are of great difficulty to this project. One thing is for sure—that the current modelling that’s been provided will have implications if the causes of, as the Member identified, what seem to be very questionable data are not drilled into and answered. The modelling that is used by Welsh Government is modelling that is adopted for active travel as well, and so we need to ensure that every decision that is taken is taken on the basis of the best possible modelling programme. It may well be required of Welsh Government to develop our own.

This statement today by the Cabinet Secretary for economy will be met with disappointment and dismay by everyone who has experienced delay in their journey time due to congestion on the M4, including myself, who travels virtually four times a week. If I leave before seven o’clock, it takes me still more than 40 minutes from Newport to this place. Lord help those who come after half past seven and spend more than one hour on the M4 just to reach Cardiff, only 10 to 12 miles. That is actually congestion every day.

Just two weeks after Labour’s programme for government—[Interruption.] Just two weeks after Labour’s programme for government made a commitment to building an M4 relief road, they have kicked the project, once again, into the long grass. This is a fact. Poor transport infrastructure and lack of capacity means that the south Wales corridor is not fit for purpose and is discouraging businesses locally, nationally and internationally from investing in Wales. So why has the Cabinet Secretary chosen to ignore the existing evidence of the need for a relief road and delay the public inquiry? CBI Wales, the Institute of Directors, the Engineering Employers Federation and the South Wales Chamber of Commerce have all called for a quick decision to be made in this respect. The Cabinet Secretary has tried to blame the Department for Transport. He claims the department only advised him of the new matters of projecting the amount of traffic three days before they were introduced. The department denies this and says that it warned Welsh officials of this change earlier this year. Will the Cabinet Secretary agree to publish all correspondence between his officials and the Department for Transport to clarify this issue? Changes to the system of traffic forecasting were introduced over the summer, so why has it taken the Cabinet Secretary so long to announce the delay in starting the public inquiry?

South Wales East, this Assembly, sporting events and businesses: people travel on the M4 in not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands, Cabinet Secretary. We need the M4 to be completed as soon as possible—2021 is not good enough here. The unreliablity of this stretch of road will increasingly generate additional costs and uncertainty for business, harm tourism and cause frustration for motorists. The Welsh Labour Government has once again let down the Welsh public here. Thank you.

Oh, good grief. I’m not sure where to begin, other than to say I’ve already outlined what happened in late July. The Member seems to think that you can probably calculate with a Casio calculator and an abacus, in a few seconds, for what is an immensely burdensome project. It cannot be done overnight, and as I’ve already said, normally—normally—Department for Transport officials will engage with us a year ahead. On this occasion, we had three days’ notice. During the period between late July and today, my officials had to scrutinise the data. They had to make an abundance of calculations, they had to assess the data, and it then became apparent that the data, as my friend and colleague Jenny Rathbone has highlighted, clearly did not support the case for a relief road as the previous data—what I believe to be more accurate data—supported the case. Given that, we then secured legal advice on the likelihood of the public inquiry being adjourned or, indeed, the case being accepted for building a relief road. The answer that we had was that an adjournment is probable, and the case simply isn’t there. Now, the Member said, ‘Why have you ignored the evidence, and why don’t you get building?’ Well, the fact is, it’s that the Department for Transport has given us evidence that can’t be ignored, because if we do, it won’t get built. My point is: we now need to get the data right, because the Department for Transport has clearly not done that. And I don’t believe—as I say, it’s not a conspiracy, I think it’s probably incompetence. But the fact of the matter is that the UK Government have really done a disservice not just to this place but to the people of Wales—to the 100,000 plus people who use the M4 on a daily basis. Now, I know that the Member clearly has lengthy delays on a daily basis in using the M4, but so do the tens of thousands of people who are hoping that this local public inquiry will begin on 1 November and who regrettably now will have to wait until potentially March before it gets going. But that is as a consequence of the Department for Transport not engaging with us as they should have done and has they have done in the past. And surely—surely—given the scale of this project, given the publicity that this project has had, the Department for Transport should have recognised that it needed to give Welsh Government more than three days’ notice.

Yes, clearly, Cabinet Secretary, it is very, very important that the evidence base for this very important decision is as sound as possible. So, could I ask that in considering the revised methodology that the UK Government has now put on the table regarding future forecasted traffic growth, Welsh Government might also look at methodologies pertaining to this decision more widely? For example, WelTAG, I think, has been subject to much criticism, in predicting a time saving for an individual car journey on a road, and then multiplying that to obtain an alleged economic benefit. So, I was quite interested in what you said, Cabinet Secretary, about perhaps looking at a Welsh formula that could be used, which could obviously take into account particular circumstances here in Wales, and I think, perhaps, some of the drivers for Welsh Government strategy and policy, such as the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and sustainable development as a central principle.

So, with that wider picture in mind, and particularly with regard to the criticism of WelTAG, would you incorporate consideration of those factors and possible changes in your consideration, going forward, on this matter?

I think the Member raises an absolutely crucial point, and it’s one that has previously been raised by our friend and the Member for Llanelli, Lee Waters. I think it’s fair to say, actually, that, in the past, WelTAG was a system that had its origins in highway modelling, and therefore often skewed in favour of road development taking place. Changes have now been made to make sure that it’s mode agnostic, and those changes are also now reflected in the fact that transport models developed using this method have also incorporated walking and cycling schemes. But I remain concerned, given what has happened with the Department for Transport’s revisions, about using a system that has let us down on this occasion, or at least adopting a relationship that has not served us on this occasion, and therefore I am giving consideration to devising a Welsh model for future infrastructure.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the written statement yesterday, and for today. I think it’s been really important for us to have advanced notice. And I agree with my colleague Jenny Rathbone about the importance of data, and up-to-date data and evidence. But I have to say, my heart did sink when I read this, and heard about it yesterday, because this is an issue that won’t go away. I said in June that we should have grasped this nettle many, many years ago, and we’re still trying to grasp it.

It’s very frustrating that this has been held up by the UK Government, without consultation, and that is deplorable. The Cabinet Secretary has outlined the timescale that he was informed of this, which, to me, is inexcusable. But can you give assurances that this will not shorten the inquiry, it will not be to the detriment of the depth of the consultation, and reassure people that an M4 relief road is at the forefront of his mind? And can he press the UK Government on this, and convey the views of the Assembly in terms of how little consultation we had?

Yes. Can I thank the Member for her questions, and say that my heart also sank when this matter—the consequences of the Department for Transport’s failure to engage with us earlier, or to consult with us—came home? I can confirm that this will not shorten the inquiry. I think it’s absolutely right and fair that every person and every organisation that has an interest in this subject is able to present their case and be heard. And we will, of course, as I’ve already given assurance, publish our revised modelling as soon as that is possible.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.