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

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on the proposed M4 relief road. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Motion NDM6647 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Resolves that the Welsh Government should not commit to financing the proposed M4 relief road without a meaningful vote on a substantive motion in the Assembly following the conclusion of the current public inquiry.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It’s my pleasure to rise to move the motion in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, which is to do with the M4 relief road, a new motorway, in truth—that’s what it is, of course. It’s true to say that it is one of the most controversial infrastructure projects perhaps that we’ve been discussing, not only recently but for some decades. There is a great range of opinion in Wales, and that’s reflected in this Chamber. But this motion asks us not to decide today on this issue, but to ensure that there will be an opportunity for us to make a decision, so that the range of views from elected Members in this place can be heard—that is, that there is a democratic will expressed as far as the decision is concerned.

Of course, we’ve seen throughout the time that this project has been discussed—and you can go back to 1991 originally, when the scheme was proposed—throughout that time, the costs have increased, partly for inflation reasons, but even in recent years we’ve seen a significant increase in the estimates that the Government itself has given for the project. That is, the First Minister just three years ago was talking about the fact that the cost would be significantly less than £1 billion, but we know now from the evidence of the Government itself to the public inquiry that that has risen at least—. Well, without including VAT, it’s risen to more than £1.3 billion, and, if you then include VAT, and as we’ve seen with so many projects recently, in terms of roads, the possibility of the cost increasing even more than the contingency of about £150 million that the Government has provided for—you can see that cost very easily increasing more. Indeed, Friends of the Earth have estimated, in their evidence to the inquiry, that we're already closer to £1.8 billion. So, this is a mega-project, isn't it? I don't think anyone can argue with that.

And, when we think of it in those terms, when we think of the possibility we're already looking at way over £1.5 billion when you add in these different elements, then I think it is only right and proper, of course, that this Parliament will get the right to decide. Because there's a huge opportunity cost in there: £1.5 billion, £1.7 billion, £1.8 billion. You can have a new integrated transport system, a metro, for Swansea bay and the western Valleys—Mark Barry has estimated £1 billion should do the first phase of that entire new regional transport system. You'd have some money to spare—probably the estimates that have been suggested for the reopening of the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen railway line you could do as well. You could have an entire new public transport system and reopen the railway line in west Wales instead of doing this.

Now, there will be Members, quite rightly, who think, actually, no, there is still—. Their assessment will be different, and they'll see cost-benefit different to my party, and, of course, that's within their right. The point of this motion, very simply, is that range of views needs to be heard and brought to bear on the final decision. Now, we've had debates, I think in every Assembly, on the M4 relief road, partly reflecting the range of disagreement there is. The problem is, of course, they've been brought on opposition motions, and we've heard in recent weeks, of course, that the Government doesn't always listen to the result of opposition debates. That's why this motion makes it clear that it should be brought forward on a Government resolution, so that it's a binding motion. And, you know, that is really standard practice for major infrastructure projects: when we look at Westminster, if we look at some of those mega-projects where, again, there have been a range of views, sometimes within parties as well—HS2, the third runway in Heathrow, even the renovation project of the House of Commons, you could say; that's a major infrastructure project now, £5 billion—there have been votes on these issues. And, of course, that's absolutely vital in a democracy, and the process, with the National Infrastructure Commission and the national policy statements in the UK, is that there is a parliamentary vote—there is a parliamentary vote—as there should be, certainly when we're talking about this level of expenditure. And so I hope that we will get support across the Chamber, across the range of views in terms of what should happen after the end of the public inquiry with this particular project.

I'll just say briefly about the Government amendment, which says that we shouldn't do anything to prejudice or prejudge the outcome of the public inquiry, the point of the motion is that we should have a vote after the public inquiry. That doesn't prejudge; we will then be informed by the outcome of the public inquiry. But, ultimately, it's Parliaments that should decide, surely, on major policy decisions. And, certainly, when we're talking about the scale of the expenditure, the scale of the impact in other terms—in transport, environmental and social terms—then it should be right, it absolutely has to be right, that it's this place that should make the final decision, and we'll be listening very, very carefully to what the Government has to say on that matter.

Andrew R.T. Davies. Ah, before you stand on your feet, I need to call the amendment. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the amendment, amendment 1, formally.

Amendment 1. Julie James

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Recognises that a public inquiry by independent inspectors into the M4 corridor around Newport project is still underway and nothing should be done to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry, the inspectors' report or the statutory process.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Bit of an anticlimax there, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's a real pleasure to take part in this debate. [Interruption.] I will not take the conversation any further. It's a real pleasure to take part in this debate, and I have to say, as the lead spokesperson for Plaid Cymru said, that debate after debate on this subject has been held in the 11 years that I have been an Assembly Member, and I'm sure people who were here before me remember previous debates. And, even before this institution was established, people were talking about the new M4 relief road or a road around Newport, obviously to solve the congestion problems. And, actually, this debate isn't about getting into the intricacies of the engineering, the environmental impact, et cetera, et cetera, it is about a simple proposition, a proposition that we on this side of the house do agree with, that this institution should have a vote—a stand-alone vote—as to whether the Government should or should not proceed on what is quite clearly its largest infrastructure project that it has considered and, no doubt, will press a button on to either say 'yea' or 'nay' after the public inquiry.

Surely, as Assembly Members whose constituencies and regions will all be affected by that decision, we should have a role to play in that decision-making process. If the Government is confident of its position and it, by virtue of being the Government, should have a majority in here, it should be able to carry the house and carry the vote to give the permission for this project to go ahead. So, it's not really a mind-numbing question that we need to spend hours and hours debating; it's a simple proposition for a democratically-elected house to play an active role in sanctioning what, as I said, is the biggest infrastructure project this Government, or any predecessor Governments, have had to consider. From our side of the house, what we have real concerns over is the costs, and the escalating costs, of the project, and we very much want to be able to have a say on that. We have made it quite clear that we will not give any blank cheques when it comes to this project, and only now, over the last couple of weeks, in evidence to the economy and transportation committee, we've heard from the Government that the costs range somewhere between £1.4 billion and £1.5 billion at the moment. I'm failing to find many infrastructure projects that start at a figure and don't just end up going up from the figure that you started with. I'd be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could give us an indication of such fixed contracts that have delivered such mega-schemes within the budgets that they've been charged with delivering. [Interruption.] And I'd also—. Public projects.

And I would also invite the Cabinet Secretary to give us some explanation as to why there's the substantial rise in these costs to give us some confidence that the Government's proposals might be still on track. Obviously, only two years ago the First Minister talked of a figure coming well under £1 billion. And now, some two years later, to be standing here and, by the Government's own estimations, and the figures that you've lodged with the public inquiry, to be on a figure of £1.4 billion does deserve an explanation, I believe, rather than just pointing to inflation, because—

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I agree with the Member on what he said so far, and certainly the principle in taking—you know, spending those sums of money should be taken here, and not left to the Executive on its own. Does he take or have any acceptance of the evidence that the costs are more likely, plus VAT, to be closer to £2 billion? And where does he think the line starts to be drawn on a project like this?

Well, that's where I was going to take my argument, because the Cabinet Secretary is clearly in possession of information, and the evidence he's given to the economy and transportation committee is that costs would have to rise significantly before the question mark was put in on this project. Well, we've had a figure of under £1 billion from the First Minister some two years ago. We've got to £1.4 billion today—perhaps £1.5 billion—without VAT. That's a £600 million increase. I'm just wondering, myself, what the Cabinet Secretary believes is a significant rise in costs before the Welsh Government themselves question the viability of the project and what solutions might well be coming forward. [Interruption.] Well, I haven't got access to the—. I hear the chuntering from the Plaid Cymru benches, but I have to say—[Interruption.] I have to say I haven't got access to the detailed information. We have put our cards on the table and said that we believe a solution needs to be put in place. [Interruption.] We believe that a solution needs to be put in place. I was travelling this piece of road this morning—at 5 o'clock this morning—heading up to Raglan livestock market. At 6:30 this morning, that road was chock-a-block, three lanes, all the way from the Severn bridge back to the Brynglas tunnels. You cannot turn your back on that situation, that the road has a serious problem and a serious stranglehold on the Welsh economy. What you can't turn away from either is the escalating costs that seem to be associated with the Government's preferred project. And so I do go back to the original proposition that we're debating here today, which is the substantive motion that this house should have the ability to vote on the project going forward and becoming a capital project of the Welsh Government and the Welsh taxpayer putting resources in. And I would hope that like-minded Members on the Government benches would consider that a reasonable proposition and consider voting for this motion today.

It feels as if we’ve been discussing the M4 for a number of years. I gave quite a bit of attention to this as spokesperson for the economy before Adam, and this is a discussion that has gone on for a generation or more by now. There have been arguments about how to tackle the traffic jams around the Newport area; it’s been going on for almost a quarter of a century. I’m very happy to make it quite clear here again that we acknowledge that the traffic jams in those parts of Wales in the Newport area can be seen as something that is detrimental to the Welsh economy and if we accept that, we must seek a solution that is effective but that is also sustainable and affordable.

As regards sustainability, we need a solution that is appropriate to deal with the future need, a future where we hope many more people will be using public transport because, hopefully, we will have invested more in public transport, and a future where there will be driverless cars and the impact that that will have. I would declare my interest in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement earlier today as regards establishing a test centre for driverless cars in the Gwent Valleys. There will also be changes in the way people work. So, we have to consider the future in taking decisions for the present.

We need an affordable solution. The costs have increased substantially. I won’t go into detail. I don’t know which figures to use by now—£1.3 billion is noted in the paper, or £1.4 billion or £1.5 billion, with value added tax on top of that. I won’t even take a guess, but I’m sure we’re talking about a project closer to £2 billion, and who knows how much more? And how can Welsh Government and how can our national Parliament, if a vote is held following the public inquiry, justify such an investment without proving that it’s part of a broader strategy that would lead to spending on infrastructure in a balanced way throughout the whole of Wales?

I have no interest in depriving any part of Wales of an investment that is vital, but striking a balance is essential, and you’re bound to fail to do that in having a situation where one region is pitted against another. I hope that nobody in this Chamber would wish to see that happening. By depriving some regions of Wales of fair investment that they need and deserve at the expense of others, then the long-term project of nation building will fail, and the reality is that the south-east of Wales sees twice as much investment in infrastructure in north Wales, and almost three times more than mid and west Wales. That is not something that we can ignore here in Wales.

Adam has alluded to the Government’s amendment. I would like to refer to one thing that is of great concern to me as regards what I view as the Government undermining and intervening in the process of holding an independent inquiry. We in Plaid Cymru for some years have been asking for a study of the potential of the blue route, or at least something which is based on what has been identified as the blue route, and the investment in railways and public transport, and so on. But the investment of £135 million in Newport docks recently led to that company withdrawing its opposition to the black route, in addition to all the compulsory purchasing that the Government has been doing. That has had a total impact on the allegedly independent process that was supposed to take place.

So, our motion today calls for a meaningful vote, as we have heard, following the conclusion of the independent inquiry. This is totally common in other Parliaments. I like Adam's term, 'superproject'—that's what we have here. When you have something on that level it makes sense on a democratic level to ensure that our national Parliament is allowed to decide. I believe that rejecting our motion today and our proposal would reject that opportunity to put an important vote in our hands as a national Parliament, would betray our constituents and the people of Wales, and democracy in Wales.

I absolutely agree that we need to have a substantive discussion on this very important matter in Government time. We cannot simply rely on opposition motions on this important matter. This proposal is in danger of completely gobbling up every aspect of the Welsh Government's borrowing limits, which means there's a real danger that it would be the only capital investment that we would be able to make. I am unconvinced that this is the best way of spending £1.5 billion.

Andrew R.T. Davies talks about the traffic backed up at 06:30 in the morning coming west towards the Brynglas tunnel. I've yet to be convinced that spending all this money on these 14 miles of new road would make any difference to that problem on its own, because you'd simply have the traffic backing up just a little bit further down the road. Unless we have modal shift, we are not going to be resolving the congestion problem that we get at particular times of the day. When I go down the road at 10:30 or 11:00 in the morning, no problem at all. This is a commuter problem, and the reason we have this problem is because we have not invested in public transport historically over the years, and that is why people are choosing to travel to their work in Newport and Cardiff by car, which is a completely crazy way of using resources.

Actually, the roads were closed today because the bridge had not finished its maintenance work overnight—that was the long and short of it. I do take the point, but that's a reason more to have a debate here, so that we can all participate in that debate and that substantive decision on whether to press the button for this project to go ahead or not.

Okay. Well, it's useful to clarify that. I was surprised that, at 06:30 in the morning, the traffic was backed up, but you've now told us why there was a particular problem today.

But the fact is that if we have a super-duper road around Newport, what is going to happen, even by the Government's own evidence to the public inquiry, is it's actually going to increase the number of vehicles commuting into Newport and Cardiff and actually will increase the congestion in Cardiff. Given the problems we have over having to admit we have illegal levels of air pollution in the high courts, it is very difficult to see how this would be a way of resolving the problems we have.

Transport is a huge contributor to the fact that we have lower productivity, as we discussed earlier. Obviously, time wasted sitting in traffic jams is time that is not being put to productive use. But my argument is that this project will not solve the congestion problem, and that we have not seen a proper comparative evaluation of transport investment to indicate how, if we spent £1.5 billion on public transport to make it much more attractive than commuting into Cardiff and Newport by car, we'd have a very different scenario. That is a huge disappointment to me, because I think that that is something that is completely absent, particularly as we know that a mile of motorway costs about the same as a mile of new rail, and that rail investment carries between eight and 20 times more people. This is why we need rail and trams, light rail, to convey people into work and back again. Simply encouraging people to come into work by car is a completely ridiculous proposal.

So, I hope that we will get some commitments that we will have a substantive debate on this matter once the public inquiry has concluded, but also that we will have a serious look at the alternative option of spending £1.5 billion on public transport to improve the journey to work for people and deliver the modal shift that is required.

Can I say at the outset that my party will be supporting this motion? The reason for this is that, as has been said before, the M4 relief road scheme is one of the biggest and most expensive projects ever undertaken by the Welsh Assembly and one of such importance that the Welsh Government itself saw fit to launch a long-lasting and exhaustive inquiry into its form and format. It therefore would seem eminently important that the whole of the Assembly should have a meaningful input into the decision made, with reference to the outcome of the inquiry.

Our concerns are that if we are not allowed to engage in this way, the Government's intentions with regard to the black route will go ahead in spite of the findings of the inquiry. We cannot help but witness the agreement already reached by the Government and the ports authority with regard to the extra funding allotted to alleviate their concerns, which appear to have been entirely in relation to the planned black route. I feel it prudent to point out here that this is an M4 relief road, whatever the derogation may be. A relief road indicates that it will only truly be needed for periods of peak traffic use.

I'd therefore urge the Cabinet Secretary to keep an open mind as to which of the options available shall be chosen. I know that he will bear in mind the huge cost differential between the blue and black routes. This cost differential could be used on other much-needed transport projects, and I'm sure he'll forgive me for again mentioned the appalling condition of Rover Way, which is more redolent of a country lane than that of a main artery into the country's capital. I'm sure that there are many AMs across the Chamber who would be able to make a case for other much-needed projects, some of which have been mentioned earlier by Adam Smith, or even consideration of the modal shift mentioned by Julie Rathbone—[Interruption.]

I apologise. You're not that old, Adam, I'm sure. Adam Price. I do apologise for that slip, Adam.

However, I urge the Cabinet Secretary to allow this consultation and vote. After all, if things do go wrong with this huge project, the whole of the Chamber could then be held culpable.

The original Adam Smith, of course, is a lot closer to the Adam Price that we have here, rather than the Adam Smith Institute, which is a completely different kettle of fish, I think. 

I very much welcome this debate and the welcome from the parties so far that's been given to the principle of having a substantive vote on such a large expenditure. I want to approach the debate from the point of view of the well-being of future generations Act, but I think the issue around the environment and the well-being Act will be debated thoroughly in another time. I want to approach it from the point of view of policy making and how we use our resources for policy objectives in light of that Act. 

The first thing to say around that, of course, is that, with the title, we have been pretty clear: future generations is the future parties Act, if you like. So, as an opposition party here, Plaid Cymru wants to become the Government of Wales. I'm sure the Conservatives also want to become the Government of Wales. I'm not sure about UKIP—I would never even presume to know what UKIP thinks these days. But, anyone who's elected to this place wants to become the Government. We want to have, therefore, a real say in any major, even super, investment that will bind the hands of future generations and future Governments as to how they might address the real challenges of Wales for the future, not just in terms of the environment but in terms of infrastructure, in terms of anti-poverty work, in terms of dealing with the future economic needs of Wales. I can't put it better than was put in 2015 by someone, who said:

'It is, to me, astonishing that a Government that is committed to reducing poverty will spend £1 billion of public money on a project that will have no economic impact on my constituents'.

I think that person is no longer in his place, but he is the Member for Blaenau Gwent, speaking after Jenny Rathbone was dismissed from her post for criticising these proposals. So, I think I want to apply that prism of future generations very hard to this decision making and to allow this Chamber and this Parliament to make that final decision.

Now, it's been very clear from the evidence given in the local public inquiry just how badly fitted to the future generations Act this proposal is. As the future generations commissioner said herself:

'Building roads is what we have been doing for the last 50 years and is not the solution we should be seeking in 2017 and beyond.'

Those trends that we are talking about in Government that other Members here have talked about, from automation to decarbonisation of transport, emissions reduction, the changes in air quality that will emerge as we go from a fossil fuel-led transport system to one that's more reliant on electric vehicles, hydrogen possibly—all of those need to be factored in to such a major spend that will influence future generations, not just one generation but two or three generations to come. And also, of course—

Will you give way?

I will give way on that point, yes.

Thank you, I appreciate that. You quoted Sophie Howe's submission about the wisdom of building roads. Of course, as part of that submission, she also said that building the blue route was not in keeping with the spirit of that either, which is Plaid Cymru's policy. So, to properly embrace her logic, you'd drop road building altogether as the solution to congestion.

I think we'd be open to re-examining the evidence around that, and I've got my own personal views that the blue route, which was chosen 10 years ago now, as an alternative to a brand-new M4 and by a Plaid Cymru transport Minister in a coalition Government, it has to be said—. We now have to re-examine in light of the new appraisal tool that the Welsh Government has for transport as well whether any road building itself is an answer to what's happening and the congestion problems around Newport, or whether we invest in lots of different things, including road improvements. There is already an existing distributor road to the south that can be used and utilised, but also junction closures, phased traffic, investment in the public infrastructure in that area, rail—which is the point that Jenny Rathbone made very powerfully as well. So, all of these need to be put in; I completely understand that. We're no longer, I think, in a position where we're making such binary judgments. We are making a judgment around up to £2 billion of transport money, how it can be invested and how it's going to best benefit not just Newport but Wales as a whole, and I think Adam Price has set out how the alternatives could work in that regard.

So, the commissioner, just to reiterate the point that Lee Waters has just made, has called for this wider investment in transport around the use of technology, as I said, about the junction controls and the metro. This is not—. This may be new to Wales, but it's not blindingly new to countries and cities that have to deal with bad air quality, bad transport and congestion. They have dealt with it in alternative ways. All that happens when you build a new road is you shift the problem several miles east or west, and in the case of this proposal, shift it probably closer to Cardiff, as it happens, because the bridges will have dealt with their tolls in a different way. I think that's something that we have to bear in mind when we approach this.

I think it's also worth remembering that when Plaid was in Government and when Ieuan Wyn Jones made the decision to cancel—it was about the fifth decision in a row to change the new M4—that wasn't just done for cost reasons. It was also explicitly done because we were rebalancing the transport budget between sustainable transport and road building. And that's been lost in the debate that we've had since 2011, and I want to reinstate some of that back into our appreciation of using the future generations Act to look at this.

I think the final thing, if I may say, Presiding Officer, is that I'm very persuaded by the changes that are happening in our economy and our environment about what Friends of the Earth Cymru say, which is that, clearly, this, if it were to go ahead, would only be a very temporary solution. They say this:

'From 2038 onwards, the "do something" scenario produces more carbon emissions than the "do minimum" alternative. The climate is impacted by total emissions. This scheme is therefore ultimately more climate-damaging than the "do minimum" alternative.'

I've been a member of this Assembly now for almost seven years, and there have been two debates that have been ongoing throughout that entire period of time. One has been the metro—and I was very privileged to be able to lead the first individual Member's debate on that issue—and the other is the M4 relief road.

I was also a member of the environment committee. I see there are a number of members of that here. We spent a considerable amount of time, I remember, in the last Assembly, going through very, very carefully the issue of the M4 relief road, the impact—environmental, the issues with traffic, the issues with sustainable transport and so on. There'll be those who remember the anger at the time when just before the committee was about to publish its findings, Welsh Government actually announced that it was going to go for the black route—a decision that I think I said at the time undermined that report and the actual work that went on in this committee to look at all those particular options.

Of course, then the potential cost was between £350 million to £1 billion, depending upon which particular routes were being talked about. And we are now talking about—if we're totally honest about it—by the time of conclusion and drift and so on, a £2 billion project. It has become an economic juggernaut that, in my view, is out of control. And if we want to talk about congestion, you will have seen a report yesterday that the A470 is in fact the most congested road in Wales. I'm not asking for a bypass to the A470, but, of course, I have been asking for the new rail link as part of the metro to Llantrisant to get people off the roads.

We have given a commitment, a fundamental commitment to the metro, to sustainable integrated transport. We've given a commitment to the people of the Valleys that the stranghlehold around there—with the growth of housing all around the Taff Ely area, the outsides of Cardiff, and in the Valleys—would actually be partly resolved by our transformational commitment to the metro. My big concern is: where is the capital if we were to go ahead with, effectively, a £2 billion project? I do not want the metro to effectively become the equivalent of the Loch Ness monster—everyone has seen a picture of it but no-one knows whether it actually exists or not. That's my concern.

I've given commitments to my constituents, we've given commitments in our manifestos, and I think there is time now to actually stand back and to review where we are, bearing in mind the scale of this project, where it stands and what its implications are for all our other commitments. It may be that I don't win those arguments in due course, but I think we have to have that particular debate. We have to actually have the opportunity to discuss something that is on this scale. What I'm seeking, really, is the assurance from Government that there will be that particular debate, that it will take place—

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

May I ask, given the terms of the motion, as well as a debate, is he seeking a vote on this matter?

I think if you have a debate, there has to be a vote, and it has to be a vote that is actually within Government time. So, that's the assurance that I seek because I think this is the largest project that we have ever faced, and it has very, very significant implications for many of our other commitments. And if we are truly committed to sustainable transport, to getting traffic off the roads, we have to consider all the options and all the financial implications.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

The M4 Newport corridor plays a vital role in connecting south Wales with England and Europe. One of the most heavily used roads in Wales, the M4 corridor is the economic and social gateway to Wales. It connects our ports, airports and serves our tourist industry. Deputy Presiding Officer, I live only 20 to 30m away from the M4 and I travel regularly, and of the 11 years I've been in this Chamber, I've worked out I've spent more than 24 hours waiting time each year. So, that means 11 days I've wasted on the M4 just to come to this Chamber.

However, the M4 in south Wales is synonymous with traffic hold-ups and the stretch around Newport is Wales's busiest length of road and it is one of the worst in the whole United Kingdom. As it stands, this vital stretch of motorway does not meet modern motorway design standard also. This results in poor, sometimes hazardous, travelling conditions for its numerous users, including sports fans who travel to Wales quite often—virtually every week. With many lane drops, an intermittent hard shoulder and just two lanes, the road is regularly congested at peak times. The worst congestion hotspot in Wales is the Brynglas tunnels. The westbound tunnels saw no fewer than 465 jams last year; that is the statistic. Gridlock is taking its toll on the Welsh economy, and it is Welsh businesses and motorists—they are bearing the brunt. It is estimated that traffic jams on our roads last year cost the Welsh economy almost £278 million. It's a pretty striking figure, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The Conservative Government action to remove the value added tax from tolls on the Severn crossing is the first step towards scrapping charges on the bridges altogether by the end of this year. The benefits for the Welsh economy of abolishing charges is estimated to be about £100 million. All this benefit to the Welsh economy is put at risk by the failure to progress the M4 relief road. Thanks to Welsh Government dithering, the cost of this vital project has escalated. The cost of gridlock and the financial benefits of abolishing tolls on the Severn bridge crossing must be taken into consideration when deciding to commit nearly £1.5 billion on this project. We all recognise this is a vast sum of money, but, in this case, I believe the key to improving the regional economy is not to spread the jam too thin. That is what somebody said recently. Otherwise, we are in danger of turning the M4 into Wales's largest car park. The stakes are too high, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the problem of the M4 to be kicked into the long grass for much longer.

By reducing tolls on the Severn bridges, the Conservative Government has further opened the gateway to Wales. We have to ensure the infrastructure is in place to reap the maximum benefit for the Welsh economy. The Welsh Government must now do its part to ensure Wales is open for businesses, and also I urge the Welsh Government to ensure that the public inquiry reports as soon as possible. It will then be for this Assembly to debate and decide on its recommendations. And, actually, they're all boxes we can tick to have this very important road in this place as soon as possible. Cabinet Secretary, it is going on since 2006 when TR111 was produced for the Government, and 2014, when the Minister was very upbeat in this Chamber about the blue and black route, and, basically, some of the areas, which my colleagues mentioned at that time, were very negative also. Some of them said that it was not useful. One of them said in this Chamber, 'It's a wrong position of the Government', and also that it was money going in the drain sort of nonsense.

But, basically, it's a great project and it ticks all the boxes: value for money; Welsh Government objectives; commercially viable; commercially affordable. And whether we can achieve it—it's the public that will take the benefit and our economy in the end. Minister, I'm pretty sure that you'll do it and please do it as soon as possible. Thank you.

I think it's right that the debate around the M4 is in flux, and it's clear from the contributions this afternoon that opinions are still fluid around this. There are people, obviously, on this bench and the Conservative bench who have consistently argued for the black route, though I was pleased to hear Andrew R.T. Davies cancel his blank cheque that he's given this project and introduce a degree of qualification to his support. There are those on the Conservative and the Plaid Cymru benches who support the blue route, and I was very pleased to hear Simon Thomas open up the way of Plaid Cymru rethinking their position in the light of the very persuasive judgment of the future generations commissioner.

I'm not sure where we're at on the Conservative benches—whether Mark Reckless, as part of his charm offensive on Alun Cairns to allow him into the Conservative Party, has abandoned his blue route support and upgraded it to black route—so I look forward to watching that development with interest. But I don't think Alun Cairns is going to warm to you whatever you do, Mark—that would be my advice to you.

So, things are in flux, and I think it's right. In the old quote of John Maynard Keynes—

'When the facts change, I change my mind.'

This is a 30-odd-year-old solution to a problem of congestion and the technology is changing rapidly—we expect driverless cars to be for sale within the next three years and the costs have changed. When we fought our manifesto at the election, we were talking about a project of under £1 billion. We're now looking at £1.3 billion to £1.4 billion. That's on 2015 prices and that's without VAT, which we're told is being negotiated. So, I'd imagine that we're going to be looking closer to £2 billion than £1 billion, and I think that that changes the nature of the commitment we had in our manifesto, and that allows us to look at that afresh.

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments this afternoon—I've made them before in this place. Suffice to say, I take this very seriously and my position on this isn't about game playing. I heard the interviews that Adam Price gave on the weekend about opening a common front with the Conservatives and his hope that they could have a joint position on this today, which would entice Members of the Labour backbenches to join their side as a way of causing trouble for the Government and discomforting the First Minister. I want no part of that. I want to kill this road, I don't want to play games around it.

I think there is also some difficulty around the motion itself. Adam Price conceded that opposition motions don't have full force. And also, the point Simon Thomas made that decisions should be taken here not by the Executive. Well, this motion, explicitly, is about the financing of this project, and decisions on the financing of projects are made in the budget. Plaid Cymru could've killed this project in the budget, should they have wanted to, but they chose not to. So, this is not a debate—[Interruption.] Let me just make progress. This is not a motion today—[Interruption.] I will do in a second. But this motion today is about the financing and I think financing should be in a Parliament, decided by a budget, but I do think there should be a substantive vote in Government time. I will give way.

I thank the Member for giving way. Just to be very clear to the Member, the budget only puts in reserve the capital for this funding. There would need to be a supplementary budget and a vote on the supplementary budget to allow this to go ahead, and on that I look forward to joining him in the lobby, as they used to say, to vote down the money for this project.

Well, I'm not in the business of voting down the budgets of a Labour Government, so that's why I want to de-couple this issue. This motion today is about the financing. I want a separate motion before this Assembly, after the public inquiry has reported, before Ministers make their decisions, on the principle of the road, not explicitly about the financing, but on the principle of the road. That's what I would like Ministers to consider, so that's why I won't be able to support the words of the motion today, even though I support the force of it.

So, I hope Ministers will listen to the strength of feeling that there is on this issue. I'm not interested in being part of Plaid Cymru's parlour games, but I am in the business of trying to shift transport policy in our country, because we have become wedded to predict and provide, and we've cast aside the principle of modal shift. And that, in the principle of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 that we have passed, should be the project that we concentrate on for the years to come.

Therefore, I shall be supporting the Government this afternoon, but I'm opposed to the road, nonetheless. The Plaid position, the Tory position, is in flux and they're more interested in game playing on this. I remember sharing platforms—[Interruption.] Leanne Wood, as ever, is showing a lack of dignity in all her heckles. I remember sharing platforms with Leanne Wood, arguing against roads as a way of tackling social justice, and we hear from her, 'Let's put hundreds of millions into a blue route instead', or Rhun ap Iorwerth: 'Hundreds of millions into other road-building schemes across Wales.' I want a change of policy to honour what you and I both agreed on at that time, Leanne Wood. Shame you've changed your position to play games. I'm not in that game.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just begin by saying how much I do respect Members' views on this issue? There have always been a wide range of opinions on this topic—passionately held beliefs and principled positions, and I recognise that strength of feeling. I hope that Members will also recognise the sincerity with which I respond to this debate today.

There are Members in this Chamber who have been consistent for many years in either supporting or opposing the proposed black route—the M4 relief road. I don't think there is disagreement, to be honest, in this Chamber on the very question of whether something needs to be done around Newport and the Brynglas tunnels. I think everybody in this Chamber would agree that the situation is unacceptable and that it cannot go on. Commuters, passengers and businesses, freight goods and produce—they all spend far too long delayed, queuing and waiting on that stretch of the M4. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, even those who question the proposed scheme and those who hold principled concerns about the need for any major road upgrade do not think that 'do nothing' is a viable option. What I think is the cause of disagreement is what we do to tackle the problem around Newport and the Brynglas tunnels, just as how we go about tackling problems with congestion in other parts of Wales is often a central point of disagreement: whether we go blue or whether we go black, whether we pour the capital into a single road project or into active travel, or rail, or a combination of solutions. As a Welsh Government, we have put forward a proposal, based on a manifesto commitment my party was elected on at the last election. Crucially, the scheme is part of a wider vision for an integrated world-class sustainable and multimodal transport system in south Wales, which Mick Antoniw talked warmly of. One that, alongside the ambition and creativity of metro, can provide a strong and lasting foundation for inclusive growth—growth not just in, but around the region.

Now, as I said, I am mindful of the varied views that have been expressed about this proposal today and over many years. And to ensure that all views on all sides are rigorously and systematically considered, independent inspectors have, over many, many months, been taking evidence, carefully listening to and considering all views. Every Member in this Chamber, every political party, every business, every group, every individual in Wales, has had the opportunity to input into that process, and evidence presented to the inquiry is now being tested rigorously. Given the rather unpleasant and unfair comments we have seen in recent times, concerning public officials who provide independent advice, I know that we will set a better standard and a better example over the next few months, by respecting the process by which evidence has been tested, and by respecting the outcome of the inquiry. The inquiry will soon conclude its work. I've always said that I want this public inquiry to be open, and also to be robust, testing all suggested alternatives to inform what would be a significant infrastructure investment for Wales.

Given the interest from parties in this Chamber, that's why I instructed the blue route to be developed and assessed in considerable detail, with seven variations of it laid before the inquiry, to compare it against the Welsh Government's proposed scheme. Members have, of course, talked about the cost differential as justification for the motion today, and yet, until the inquiry has reported, we won't really know what the cost differential is. Indeed, there may not be a cost differential.

I also recognise that many Members today have talked about the emerging technologies that can be utilised in cars in the future. Applying the so-called predict and provide model of the present to vehicles of the future could actually see, based on a lot of international evidence, increased need for road space, given that autonomous cars, certainly in their infant stage, are likely to require more space in order to comply with new rules and regulations. [Interruption.] Yes, of course. Yes.

I was just wondering, before he concludes his remarks, could he just address the central issue of the motion, which is the question as to whether there will be a substantive vote in this Assembly after the conclusion of the public inquiry.

I'm coming to that very point, and I should say that the Welsh Government has not, and nor will it, make a decision without fully and diligently considering the inspector's findings and conclusions, and that's why the Welsh Government has tabled the amendment that it has today.

I will say something on the issue of the Assembly, and its role concerning the voting on stand-alone projects. On finance for this particular project, the Cabinet Secretary has already stated that the public inquiry will be allowed to report before any allocation decisions are made, and these allocation decisions will be reported to the National Assembly. And, where they need the approval of the National Assembly in subsequent budgets, that approval must and will be sought. I've listened very carefully to Members who have made the argument that, because of the scale of this particular project, it deserves special procedures. But, as a Parliament, I do think that we need to think carefully about how stand-alone financing of stand-alone projects would operate.

Will you give way?

What other projects would have to be considered in isolation? Because there is no manual, there is no handbook, there is no guide in our constitution that describes how big a stand-alone project must be to warrant a stand-alone vote on its financing that could be held on the floor of this house. Indeed, I would fear that regional interest could overtake, potentially. As Rhun ap Iorwerth said, we need to ensure that, as part of the nation-building process, we don't have the regions playing off against one another. There would be a real risk of regions being played off against each other if we were to have stand-alone votes on stand-alone projects. But I give way to Nick Ramsay.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You moved on slightly from the point I was going to make, but I think it needs to be made. The decision of Beeching to close many railways, back in the 1950s and 1960s, is now looked back on in history as a huge mistake. That decision wasn't properly judged or futureproofed. You've mentioned driverless cars, and you've said that, in their infancy, they may need more space, but actually, once that technology is developed, you can fit more of those cars into a given road space because they don't need the same stopping distances and they can be computer controlled. So, my point is: will you make sure that this decision, when it is taken, is adequately futureproofed to make sure that we don't end up with a load of road capacity in the future that we won't actually need?

Well, I'd agree entirely. That is an absolute requirement of the thorough assessment of all of the evidence that is being given. Actually, if you look at some of the predictions that have been made about the longer term use of autonomous vehicles, it's likely that autonomous vehicles will lead to lower car ownership, but higher car use, and that more cars will be used more of the time on roads, thereby leading to more vehicles being in use at any one time. That, in turn, could lead to greater demand for road space.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this month marks a year of the M4 project being examined by two independent planning and engineering inspectors. Due to conclude shortly, this will be the longest public inquiry to have ever been held in Wales. I've repeatedly said in this Chamber that this review process must take as long as is necessary to scrutinise the evidence on the scheme and to allow all people to have their say. That is happening, and I would ask Members to allow the inquiry to complete its work, to allow all evidence from experts and interested persons to be fully considered and, above all, to respect the process and accept the outcome of it before a final decision is made.

Thank you. Can I now call Adam Price to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was going to say halfway through the debate that I felt it was Parliament being at its best because there was a range of views on this issue, but we were coalescing and uniting, actually, around the core principle that, ultimately, Parliament must decide. I was hoping that the Cabinet Secretary, in his remarks at the end, would give us some clarity on that central issue, and yet I'm completely unclear. He can intervene on me, if he would like to, in reverse order to the intervention I made on him.

He talked about having stand-alone votes on stand-alone projects, and then he went on to talk about some of the downsides of that if the precedent was set. I'm not quite clear, still, whether the precedent is going to be set. Is there a commitment to have a specific vote? It's not enough to have a vote on the supplementary budget. The supplementary budget could have a number of things in it. Then I know what would happen, because it's happened to me several times, Lee Waters. I vote for one reason, but then the list of other things that are in the budget I am accused of being against, and they're usually things that no-one could possibly be against. That's why we need to have a specific vote.

In relation to the point that Lee Waters raised, if there are lexicological problems with the motion, then I have the responsibility for that. I think the spirit of the motion is clear, though. What we were trying to do with the motion was to say that the Government could not go ahead with expenditure on the project before there was a vote on the principle following the public inquiry. I think that was clear to me. If it wasn't clear to other Members then I apologise for that, but I'm clarifying the intention. You know, we don't live in a perfect world, and we certainly don't live in a perfect Parliament. So, if you want to actually vote in favour of the principle of a vote on the principle then this will be the only vote that you're going to get, okay. And what I would say—in all honesty, and delving deep into all the resources of charity in my soul, I would say to the Member opposite, I would say to the Member opposite: see beyond your antipathy, either to me or to my party, because there's a bigger issue here, which is beyond party. In fact, as Simon Thomas says, it's beyond generations, isn't it? It's intergenerational equity that we talking about here. And so, I would appeal to him—I know that he is absolutely sincere about the substantive issue, but in terms of ensuring that the Government gives us all a vote then this is our opportunity. Take it. Take it now. Take it tonight. We won't get another chance; this is it.

The consensus that I heard in the contributions in the Chamber, from Andrew R.T. Davies, from other Members, including Lee Waters, I believe, is the figure of £2 billion. I think we all accept that there is a certain kind of inevitability about where we're going to end up. Jenny Rathbone, I think, in a very, very powerful contribution, pointed out that opportunity cost exists in all parts of Wales, doesn't it? Rhun ap Iorwerth referred to some of the relative underinvestment that there's been in some regions of Wales. But it is true: Mark Barry, in his initial assessment of the cost of the first phase of a metro—you know, £1 billion, £1.5 billion, £2 billion would make a massive transformational effect for public transport in the south-east of Wales as well. And it's that opportunity cost calculation that we have to be able to bring to bear as individual Members, across our parties, and, yes, Simon Thomas was right to say that we are—as a party, we have to re-evaluate our position in the light of the evidence that has been presented. So, we place that on the record. We would urge Members—. I realise this is inherently difficult, and I really pay tribute to those Members on the Labour benches who spoke very, very powerfully of the need for us to have a democratic vote, primarily because, of course, of the doubt that you share, we share, about whether this represents true value for money, but also the truest values—the values that we want to enshrine in the future that we're trying to create for our country.

Look, I realise that we all engage from time to time—it's an occupational flaw, maybe—in knockabout. But there are some things that are more important, and if I, in any way, in any comments that I made, have clouded your judgment in that then I would apologise, because— there have been a lot of apologies in this Chamber recently, and I'm prepared to make one as well—this is more important than political theatre. This is more important than actually winning or losing in that shallow sense. This is about the future of our country, and I'm heartened by the sense of consensus in this Chamber, that on these kinds of decisions—decisions that, once made, will impact upon generations to come—then we as a Parliament, as parliamentarians, regardless of party, must insist that we get a vote. And I did invite the Cabinet Secretary—in the few seconds that I've got left, if he wants to get on his feet, if he wants to reassure us that we will get that vote, he can. But I'm afraid to say that the silence speaks for itself. If you want to see that democratic vote then use your vote tonight.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.