It’s worth stressing that there are no plans to devolve the power to set tolls on the Severn bridge to the Assembly. This is therefore a fairly theoretical debate, designed primarily to put pressure on the UK Government. Were powers to be devolved, I think we’d be having a slightly different discussion this afternoon.

But as this is a largely philosophical debate, I’d like to use the opportunity to suggest an alternative approach to the Assembly: one that I think is especially important in the light of Brexit. If the tolls were to be removed, the best forecasts are that the floodgates would open. Traffic would increase by somewhere between 12.5 per cent—the Government’s figures—and 25 per cent—Russell George’s mysterious figures. But, hearing what John Griffiths said about the impression given to people coming into Wales of having to pay tolls, we would instead be giving people coming into Wales the impression of heavily congested roads. Because either the tunnels at Brynglas and the surrounding area would be even more congested by this incredibly large flow of traffic that would result, or if we do end up spending £1 billion on a new stretch of M4, that would very quickly fill up with traffic and create demands for even more road capacity further down the M4.

I would remind the Assembly that we do have commitments; we’ve all made commitments enshrined in law to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, with interim targets to cut them by 40 per cent by 2020. We are not on track to meet these targets and increasing car use on the M4 will only make matters worse. I appreciate that this is an inconvenient consideration, but it’s a very real one that we can’t simply brush aside every time we’re faced with a decision that conflicts with the commitments that we’ve made. Clearly, creating an alternative to car use is a key part of that puzzle. An attractive public transport system is essential, but Brexit has put a significant question mark against the future scope and shape of the south Wales metro.

The second phase of the metro is estimated to cost £734 million over six years. A significant chunk of that—some £125 million—had been expected to come from the EU. Pulling out of the EU will leave a shortfall of some £21 million a year—a sixth of the total funding package. The UK Government should meet—[Interruption.] If I can just make some progress. The UK Government should meet that shortfall, but I fear they won’t and it’s hard to see how our capital budgets can fill that gap, given that we’re setting aside £1 billion for the M4. I fear that we will struggle to deliver the full potential of the metro project, and if the Assembly got its way today, we’d commit ourselves to a strategy to significantly increase car traffic on the M4, whilst simultaneously cutting back the only plan we have to reduce pressure on the road network, all the while needing to cut carbon emissions by 40 per cent within four years, when all the indicators show we’re going the other way. I think we should pause and reflect before we proceed. We need to find a way of fully funding and expanding the metro project, and I think earmarking money from the tolls to pay for a public transport project to take pressure off the M4 is the best option available to us. Tolls on the two Severn bridges have become an accepted part of the south Wales economy. Now, we can discuss how the levels of the tolls could be more creatively applied, and there’s no reason why, for example—[Interruption.] Sorry, Dai, I don’t have much time; if I do, I’ll come back to you.

We can see how those tolls can be more creatively applied. We don’t have to apply them to vans or lorries, for example. We could apply them to lone car users instead. But if we retain the tolls, we retain the power to choose. The bridges currently bring in somewhere between £90 million and £109 million a year, and only around £20 million of that is thought to be for maintenance. So, potentially, there could be somewhere between £70 million and £90 million available to invest in the metro, to plug that EU funding gap or even to leverage borrowing to expand the metro project to its full vision that we’d like to see and, indeed, to expand metros across Wales. But we can only do that if we keep our options open, and the intention behind today’s motion is to close down options.

If we want to avoid the catastrophic impact of climate change on business, on health, on infrastructure—it’s worth noting that these road bridges are predicted to be all under water within 50 years unless we tackle climate change—then we need to do something different. Simply carrying on with the same solutions is the wrong approach. Thank you.