Which brings us to item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate on the M4 corridor decision, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Motion NDM6880 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Believes that the decision on whether to go ahead with the proposed M4 corridor around Newport project should be left to the new First Minister, appointed in December 2018, subject to the findings of the local public inquiry.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I won’t speak for too long today, because the point that we have made by presenting this motion is quite simple. We will have opportunities to discuss the case for and against the M4 black route over the next few weeks and months. For the record, I will note my own view and my party’s view on the proposals that are being discussed and that have been subject to a public inquiry recently.

We do recognise and realise that there is work to be done to make the road system in the south-east of Wales more resilient and that there is room to make great investment in doing that, but we have yet to be convinced that going for the black route, as it is described, or a new route for the M4 to the south of Newport, is the way to deliver that. There are financial arguments for that. Why commit so much funding for one road, when there are alternatives? There are strong environmental arguments against that. We will hear more about that from Llyr Gruffydd a little later.

We believe that we could be more innovative and bring a twenty-first century solution to the problem that we are facing, rather than a solution that has its roots—let's be honest—in the 1970s and 1980s. We believe that we could move more swiftly towards resolving this problem taking that approach, but, along with that, we believe that what also needs to be done is to strengthen the public transport system in order to take people off the roads in the first place. So, for the record, that's where we stand on the M4.

But this debate isn't about that issue. There will be a vote held in this place at some point on the future of this proposal, where it's expected that the Members of our national Senedd’s vote will be binding. And if this Assembly says 'no' to the black route, then there is an expectation that 'no' should mean 'no'. But there is an important step to be taken before then by the Welsh Government. It’s the Welsh Government who will look at the conclusions of the public inquiry and will make a decision as to whether they wish to proceed or not.

The Welsh First Minister will make that call, but there is a context that will change very soon. There will be a change in the governance landscape of Wales, and one of the three candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party is here in the Chamber today. One of the three will become the new First Minister of Wales within a matter of weeks. Our simple point today is that the decision should be left to the new First Minister as to whether we proceed or not, because we believe that the decision is so significant that the decision should be owned by whoever becomes the new First Minister of Wales.

We don't believe that it’s acceptable for either the current First Minister to take the blame for doing something unpopular and then to disappear off the scene, or to take ownership of this as some means of leaving a personal legacy. No, there is too much at stake—

Will the Member give way?

—here, and it should be a decision taken by the person who replaces the current First Minister.

Yes, I will take an intervention.

Here, the motion refers to the decision as to whether to go ahead, but aren't there two distinct decisions here: (1) whether to make these Orders and give planning permission, where the current First Minister has been careful not to prejudice himself and is well-placed to do that, and then, second, a decision whether to prioritise and spend the money and actually commence construction, which Welsh Government will take after? Isn't that a sensible division?

You're absolutely right, that is the process that is followed and, in a way, what we are saying is that we want that decision on whether to sign those statutory Orders to be taken by an incoming First Minister, because that's what instigates and kicks off that process, which then leads to a vote here on whether we think it's something that should be prioritised to release that money that is held currently in reserves, waiting to be triggered. We believe that trigger should be pulled by the new First Minister. There is so much at stake for the future of spending in Wales, the environment in Wales, future generations in Wales; let's see ownership of that decision by the new, incoming First Minister of Wales. 

Of course, we need a solution to the M4 congestion issue—that's an issue that no doubt will be supported by every Member across the Chamber—but what we are waiting for is, of course, the full details of the public inquiry. And we as AMs across this Chamber need to see that report, and I'd say it's essential that the Government publishes the findings and conclusions of the public inquiry so that we and stakeholders are able to digest and scrutinise that consultation and the conclusions of that inquiry report. 

I won't be a lone AM in this Chamber in having a large e-mail postbag, especially over the last week, with views from all different sectors, and those views, of course, have all got to be balanced. But I do believe that the Welsh Government has dragged its feet on this issue. There have been 20 years of discussions and consultations, and no practical solution has been delivered. We have had the public inquiry, the inquiry has now presented its findings to the Welsh Government, so I'm disappointed that we, as AMs here, haven't had the chance to scrutinise those findings either.

And it does look like, as well, that we've had contradictory information as well on this issue. We've had the leader of the house, in answering First Minister's questions last week and in previous times as well, give us one position, we've had the economy and transport Minister providing evidence to the environment committee last week that appears to tell us something different, and the First Minister something else. So, what I do hope will come out of this debate when the Cabinet Secretary, or the leader of the house, perhaps, responds to this debate this afternoon, is again that clarity on the position and the timetable of the decision-making process. I think it's absolutely clear that we have that.

But I understand the motion that's put forward today; I'm willing to listen to the debate before we make any conclusion on this side about how that should be—which way we'll vote ourselves. We have constantly said a decision needs to be made as soon as possible. So, I don't want to see that put off, but I accept absolutely—

Will you just take an intervention—

Yes.

—just to make that point? I think it's not a matter of seeking to build in additional delays into a process that's already taken a long time, whichever side of the debate you're on; we're talking about weeks here before a decision will be taken. 

Yes, and I absolutely accept that position. We are talking a matter of weeks and, of course, the new First Minister—I see the argument for the new First Minister taking the final decision. I do see that argument as well, and I appreciate what you're saying. 

For the record, my postbag is full of people who don't want to see the destruction of the Gwent levels, which some of them are describing as the equivalent of the Amazon basin. So, that is certainly a particular concern of many, many of my constituents.

However, I completely agree with the motion. We need to ensure that the new Government has options available because, looking back, it's five years since Mark Barry's report, 'A Metro for Wales’ Capital City Region' made the case for a step change in regional public transport connectivity and the adoption of an integrated city region economic transport and land use plan. We are a very long way from that, and we have ignored the fact that, two years later, the Cardiff capital region board's 'Powering the Welsh Economy' pointed out that an integrated transport system, aligned with land use planning, could be a catalyst for economic change across the region. And at the heart of this aspiration, they say, is the metro vision for a modern, high-quality, multimodal integrated public transport network. Hurrah. I completely agree with that. And we have to acknowledge that it is simply unsustainable to have 100,000 people commuting into Cardiff and Newport by car for both climate change and public health reasons. This is simply something that hasn't been properly considered in the inquiry. Given that it costs exactly the same per kilometre to build a rail line as a motorway and yet the rail line can carry between eight and 20 times more people, that, in my view, is where the investment needs to go, in line with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—inspirational legislation created by Carl Sargeant.

Now, we've just heard the pleas from the Member for Torfaen—I'm sorry she's not here at the moment. But earlier on she was talking about the need to have trains stopping in Pontypool so that people could commute by train to their jobs, and I absolutely agree with that. We simply aren't going to distribute growth across the region unless we have that connectivity. If I want to start a new business, I'm much more likely to want to locate it in Pontypool than in Cardiff, simply because the rents are going to be cheaper. We've had this very expensive public inquiry going on for months about 14 miles of road, and this has meant, sadly, policy paralysis and not nearly enough attention paid to the public transport infrastructure that this region needs.

So, I want to see a lot more work being done by the Government, old and new, coming in as a matter of urgency on the public transport options, which were absent from the public inquiry. For example, how can we use the four lines running east of Cardiff Central? Two of them have to be dedicated to the so-called high-speed lines to London and elsewhere. We can have a debate about that, but the other two lines are not being appropriately deployed to provide many more train services running to and from the east of Cardiff for local traffic, and I want to understand why that is, because there are four lines and we're not using them. So—

Will the Member give way?

Okay.

Does she recognise the new station at Llanwern, with the proposed new private station near St Mellons, but also with campaigns for stations, such as at Magor and Undy—if we have several new stations on that line, then that would make a very strong case for an additional type of stopping service beyond the high-speed services we currently have?

I don't disagree with Mark Reckless. I'm sure that's one of the possible options, but obviously there are other places that need to be served. This isn't quite the place for examining the detail. But one of the important things we've learned recently, since Transport for Wales took over the Arriva contract, is that James Price has assured us that the Keolis contract is flexible enough to be able to adapt to changing targets. So, this is very good; we can change the spec for the contract without incurring penalties. So, this is really important. So, instead of assuming that the congestion around Newport can be magicked away by building more roads—it would be a first if that was the case—the Government needs to do some serious work on the public transport solutions to the congestion problems that Newport undoubtedly faces. In particular, I want to know in the short term how long it takes to get a fleet of electric or hydrogen buses purchased and up and running. That is the fastest solution while we fix the rail lines and get more trains on the tracks.

I admire the Member for Cardiff Central for her independence of mind, and I frequently agree with what she says. There is a serious argument about which is the best solution to the problems that we all know about. I stood for election, as did my colleagues, in support of the blue route rather than the black route, although I did say about two years ago that the black route would be better than no route. We can't go on endlessly in limbo as we have been for the last 20 years. But this is undoubtedly going to be the biggest capital spending decision that has been made since devolution 20 years ago, and I think that the importance of it does require, as Rhun ap Iorwerth said in his opening speech, that the decision should be owned by the new First Minister. I know that there's collective responsibility, of course, and all members of the Cabinet who are involved in taking this decision, ultimately, who survive the reshuffle, will, therefore, be able to be made accountable. But I do think that as a matter of practice it should be the new Cabinet, under the leadership of the new First Minister, that ought to take this decision, especially as we're not talking of—Rhun ap Iorwerth said just a few moments ago—immense delay. It's just a couple of weeks before the new First Minister is in place. There can surely be no argument for rushing this in the course of the next few hours, in effect, given that we've been waiting for it for such an immense length of time.

It is a decision on which, I think, party lines may become blurred, and a good thing too, in my opinion. We should take into account the variety of different interests that have contributed, and are still contributing, as we know from our postbags, each and every one of us, to the decision that has to be made. So, it does seem to me that there's an unanswerable case for what Rhun ap Iorwerth set out and is set out in this motion, and I shall be supporting it today.

The principle of accountability in politics is an important one, of course, and it’s clearer in some situations than others these days. Too often, over the past two years, we have seen politicians not only making promises when they’re not in a situation to achieve those or fulfil those promises—I’m talking about Brexit, by the way, if you’re not sure—but we also see Ministers, and First or Prime Ministers indeed, making decisions that are going to have far-reaching consequences for those that they’re accountable to before stepping aside, without facing the results of their decisions, without having to justify the decisions, and without being accountable for those decisions. That’s an important principle that, in a very different context, is visible here, especially when we’re talking about such a major decision, especially when it’s a decision that is being taken so close to the end of the period of one First Minister in office, and the beginning of the period of the next First Minister. And I’m looking forward to Adam Price taking his place in the frontbenches over there.   

We've heard, of course, about the scale of the decision to be taken: the single largest investment decision that this Government, or any Government since the dawn of devolution, has taken. But, of course, if that decision is made by the current First Minister, then it won't be him that'll be in a position to be held to account for it or to have to justify it and its wide-ranging consequences. Of course, it won't be the present First Minister who will be held accountable when the building starts and when the unique protected landscape of the Gwent levels is damaged, the ancient woodland, the nationally designated nature conservation sites. It won't be the present First Minister who will be held to account when future generations face the adverse effects resulting from the increased carbon emissions, making it, of course, more difficult for the Government to meet its own emission reduction targets. It won't be the present First Minister's capital budget that will be limited, or whose entire borrowing powers will have been used. It's not the present First Minister who will have to explain to communities in other parts of Wales, consequently, why they won't get the fair share of capital investment that they were hoping for. Now, all of that will fall, of course, on the next First Minister. And who knows? The next First Minister may well have different priorities. Instead of spending the £1.4 billion on 14 miles of tarmac, he or she may decide to use that money to realise phases 2 and 3 of the metro—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, okay, very briefly. 

Why do you think it's only going to cost £1.4 billion?

Wow. I don't, and I'm glad that you reminded me of that. [Laughter.] Look at what else we could achieve if it transpires to be much higher than that. We could build the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, and I know there'd be one person here who'd be supportive of that; we could bring all homes in Wales up to a required energy efficiency standard; we could electrify 175 miles of train lines in Wales.

Now, these are the projects that, according to the future generations commissioner, could be built using the money for the M4, and I commend the future generations commissioner's report, 'Transport fit for Future Generations', which raises fundamental questions. It highlights that there are limitations to the modelling undertaken by the Welsh Government. The black route would exacerbate many of the societal and environmental challenges facing Wales, and the black route is weak on the criteria set out in the well-being of future generations Act. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the black route is incompatible with the well-being of future generations Act. We were told that the Act is world leading, and I'm happy to believe that, but it's only world-leading legislation when it leads to world-leading change, and this is very much business as usual. For me, it's a litmus test as to whether the Government takes seriously its duties under the well-being of future generations Act, and I very much hope that the decision will be left to the incoming First Minister.

I think the motion before us is fairly uncontroversial; I think it's a matter of fact that the decision will be made by the next First Minister. In the budget, the decision to sign the Orders is primarily a procedural one, and as I understand it, without signing the Orders, the public inquiry report won't be able to be published. So, I hope that there's a unanimous vote here this afternoon in favour of the motion.

Rather than dwelling on that, I just want to address some of the longer term issues I think we, as a National Assembly, need to start thinking about ahead of that budget vote. It's been stated that my party said in our manifesto that we would build a new motorway around Newport, and, of course, at that time, the cost was around £700 million. In fact, the First Minister told this Chamber that it would be way under £1 billion. The public inquiry was told that had gone up to £1.4 billion—it had doubled. We now understand that it's gone up to £1.7 billion. Now, there's no way I'd think that this scheme's going to come out anywhere under £2 billion. Two thousand million pounds for 12 miles of road that is set to produce average journey-time savings of between two and a half and five minutes. Now, that seems to me a completely disproportionate investment for those levels of benefits. And as that cost has changed, we need to reflect on the cost benefit of this scheme.

The road sponsors—and, let's call a spade a spade, this has been pushed by industry, by the Confederation of British Industry, their lobbying organisation, who have a material interest in seeing this scheme succeed. Why wouldn't they? They're going to get £2 billion of public money going through the company books. They're quoting the official Welsh Government scheme benefit of a £2 billion return on investment. That's £2 billion in, £2 billion out. Now, that doesn't seem to me a terribly high return on investment.

But let's challenge that figure because that figure is never challenged. The media doesn't do it, we don't do it; we simply repeat and accept the logic of a £2 billion return on investment. How do they get that figure? The figure is built on sand; it's built on what are called notional time savings—not even real time savings—notional time savings. So, they say, if you take the number of people using that road, and they save between two and a half and five minutes on a journey, and they monetise that, they say that extra five minutes—let's be generous—will produce five minutes of extra productivity for the economy. They then multiply that by 30 years, so they come up with this fantastical figure of hundreds of thousands of people gaining an extra five minutes, and in that five minutes, they are going to produce these wonderful returns for the economy. Now, I don't know about you, if I get to my mate in Bristol's house five minutes sooner, that's not going to produce a return for the economy.

So, this figure just does not make sense, and it's done over 30 years. They are retrospectively concocting an economic formula to justify the conclusion they came to in the first place. And it's interesting, back in 2011, the M4 corridor enhancement measures report was published, which proposed a number of measures to improve the section from Magor to Castleton. Nothing's been done with it; nothing has been done on that report and how to bring about change on that road because all the highway engineers are transfixed on getting this large career-defining project on their books. So, we need to be far more sceptical about these figures. The cost, we know, has more than doubled, it's approaching being trebled. The benefits are not what they are sold as, and I think we need to be robust in reflecting on the commitments given, especially post Brexit, when resource is going to be much more scarce, and whether or not that is the best way to make Wales more resilient to the economic shocks coming our way. If any of us were given a £2 billion cheque to spend to make Wales better, how many of us would honestly spend it on 12 miles of road to save five minutes on the average journey?

I'd just like to make a final point about Newport, because there is a problem in Newport, and I have great sympathy with my friend and colleague the Assembly Member for Newport West, who makes the case for addressing this. The problem with Newport is that Newport is a car-dependent city. The figures are stark. In Newport, half the proportion of people walk to work that do in Cardiff—50 per cent fewer people in Newport walk to work than in Cardiff; 135 per cent of people in Newport drive to work compared to Cardiff—about a third of the number, as I say, in Newport drive to work, compared to Cardiff. The number of carbon dioxide emissions in Newport are 25 per cent higher than they are in Cardiff. Newport is a car-dependent city. The Conservative council ripped up the bus lanes, and the current council have not succeeded in giving any money for active travel measures.

As has been mentioned, the future generations commissioner has published some detailed work on what can be done in practical terms to improve sustainable transport measures in Newport. There is a problem in Newport. There's a problem on the M4—40 per cent of the traffic on the M4 is local journeys, it's Newport people driving from one bit of Newport to the other, and we need to address that, we need to help Newport, Newport council needs to help Newport. What doesn't help Newport or all of Wales is blowing £2 billion on a piece of road that's going to fill up almost as quickly as it's built.

I've only got a few additional comments to add to the very thorough explanations given by my colleague Lee Waters. I'll be supporting the motion today, because it makes absolute sense and the decision will be taken in the early part of next year. But, I think, in addition, there are obviously environmental issues, and there are issues of affordability. But for me, when we come to take that decision, it's really going to be about what sort of Wales we want: what is our vision for the future? Do we want to invest as a society, for a generation, all our capital resources in cars, lorries, congestion and pollution, or do we really want to invest—

Can I come in there?

Yes, certainly.

I just wonder, given the number of Labour Members for whom their vision of Wales does not include building an M4 relief road, why did you put that in your manifesto.

We had a manifesto that was not to build a particular route, but was to build a route that would deal with the congestion issue. We also have in our manifesto a whole series of commitments in terms of the metro and integrated transport, and my friend Lee Waters also makes a very valid point in terms of the affordability issue of something that started off at several hundred million to something that now has massively increased.

I think it is perfectly right that we do have to have a solution in terms of Newport, and we have to look very closely at what that is. I think my view is that building a 12-mile stretch of motorway at this particular cost is not actually a solution to anything in the long term. I mean, the fact of the matter is that you don't deal with obesity by buying a bigger pair of trousers [Laughter.]. We have to start looking at realistic alternatives. The most important thing, I think, is how committed to an integrated public transport system—. And I think that is where the debate is going to come. It's going to be about vision, it's going to be about our belief in and reinforcement of the future generations Act and of our environmental legislation. So, when we come to this matter early next year, it's going to be about our vision, it's going to be about the sort of society we want and it's also going to be about a modern future transport system, and whether that is the priority that we really want to invest in, or do we want to look at the old solutions—to throw money at it and actually achieve no solution whatsoever?

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd very much like to thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward the debate today and thank Members for their very considered contributions. I'll say at the outset that the Government will be supporting Plaid Cymru's motion today. 

Plaid argue in their motion very clearly that the decision on whether to go ahead with the proposed M4 corridor around a Newport project should be left to the new First Minister appointed in December 2018, subject to the findings of the local public inquiry. Should the statutory Orders be made, it will be for a new First Minister and her or his Cabinet to ultimately make a decision to enter into the construction contract that would enable the scheme to proceed. However, it is important that the current process concerning the statutory Orders is allowed to run its course, and, accordingly, it's the intention of the current First Minister, Carwyn Jones, on behalf of the Welsh Ministers, to make a decision on those statutory Orders if at all possible during this Assembly term, on the basis of recommendations made in the inspector's report.

Obviously, the First Minister has not yet seen the inspector's report, we are waiting on the advice from the officials, including legal advice, to go with that report in order to enable him to make that decision. On making that decision, the inspector's report will immediately be published. And, just to be really clear, because I know that we've had clarity issues across this, we've queried what 'immediately' means in a legal context in this way, and, effectively, the report will be appended to the decision notice that makes the Orders, or doesn't make the Orders—one way or the other—because obviously you can go either way with that decision. After that's happened, we will schedule a debate and a vote in the Assembly in Government time, if we are able to do that within the time frame of this particular Government. As I've said, the decision to enter into a binding construction contract for the delivery of the scheme, should the Orders be made, would be a matter to be taken forward by the new First Minister and her or his Cabinet in the new year.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government officials who received the independent inspector's report, following the public inquiry, are in the process of preparing detailed advice for the First Minister on the basis of those recommendations. That advice, which includes the complex legal advice, will inform a decision under the relevant legislation as to whether or not to make the statutory Orders. This is an executive decision for Ministers under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 that needs to be based on the content of a detailed report produced by a planning inspector following a lengthy public inquiry. There is no legal role within that decision-making process for the legislature. However, once the statutory Order decision-making process is complete, we will bring forward the debate in Government time so the Assembly can express its own view on the project.

Will the leader of the house give way?

Yes, of course.

Given the length of this report and the complexity of the issue, while of course he needs legal advice and he needs other people who will advise and read the report, wouldn't it make sense for the First Minister to have the report now and to have more time and opportunity to read it, to properly give consideration over a necessary period to what decision he then makes?

No, our advice is that it should come with the advice together, so that the First Minister can regard it as a whole, and clearly this isn't something that's going to take a few hours to read. It will take an appropriate length of time for him to be able to go through that—whatever that length of time is. So, Llywydd, you can see that the time for that decision is running out. But nevertheless, if this First Minister is able to do that, then we think he should do that. If he's not able to do it, then he's not able to do it and it will of course go across to the next First Minister, whoever she or he is.

Obviously, there is—. And I'm grateful for the information to date that the leader of the house has put on the record, but given that there is a leadership contest going on at the moment in Labour, and this has been a topic for discussion, the current First Minister has been very careful not to prejudice himself, and I don't think any one of the candidates has prejudiced themselves deliberately, but in the cut and thrust of that discussion, they've expressed opinions. Has the Welsh Government sought advice as to whether the incoming First Minister, if this decision isn't taken, would be able to take that decision, given the debate that's gone on in the current leadership campaign?

I'm not aware that such advice has been sought or taken. I'm sure it would be, though, if we found ourselves in that position. As far as I'm aware, the candidates—. Well, certainly one of them hasn't made an announcement of that sort. That would be a matter for the lawyers to decide, and we'd have to take appropriate advice if that happens.

But, as I say, it's a complex process. There are very distinct legal parameters for what can and can't be taken into account when you undertake the statutory process. This is a process that will be subject to appeal and judicial review, almost certainly, and therefore the lawyers are very keen that the exact provisions—what is relevant, what is not relevant, what should be taken into account or should not be taken into account—are set out for the First Minister in making the decision and in reading the report.

As I say, at this point in time, it is still possible that that would happen with this First Minister and that we would schedule a debate for next week. As soon as I'm aware of whether that is or isn't possible, then obviously, Llywydd, I will be letting you know, as we discussed in Business Committee, and also business managers across the Chamber know. That is the intention at the moment. As I say, the complexity of the process means that we have to be very contained about the way that we do it.

However, if it is not possible for this First Minister to make that process—. And I'd just like to say, for the record, that the First Minister remains the First Minister until he resigns and isn't the First Minister; his powers don't diminish in some scale over that time. He retains all the powers of the First Minister right up until the second he resigns. So, just to be clear, legally, there is no diminution of power as that goes ahead. But if that is not possible, then I will be recommending to the next Government and the new First Minister, as outgoing leader of the house, that that Government should honour the commitment to bring forward a debate in Government time for the Assembly to have its say. I fully expect that the incoming Government will do so, and the reason I expect that, Llywydd, is that this is not an easy issue. The choices before us, as many Members have set out, are very hard indeed. The M4 is no ordinary project, and there have been many voices expressing strong views on both sides of the argument.

In setting out these steps today, I believe the Welsh Government has balanced some important processes and principles, and the Welsh Government needs to follow the formal legal process in relation to deciding whether to make the statutory Orders for the project. The Assembly will then express its view on the project. That view will, of course, be known by the next Government if it finds itself in the position of making decisions on whether to implement the scheme by entering into the construction contract. Many Members today have set out parameters by which they think that decision might be made. We therefore support the Plaid motion today on the basis that it acknowledges that, if the statutory Orders are made, it is still within the prerogative of the future Government to determine whether it should enter into a contract for the scheme to be constructed within the parameters of all of the things mentioned by all Members who have contributed to the debate today. Diolch.  

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much for all of the contributions to this short debate this afternoon. I think it's been a very useful debate. It's been about timing. I think it was inevitable that we would move on to areas of the pros and cons of the black route, and some very strong points were made by Jenny Rathbone and Lee Waters and others that I would agree with—that we are barking up the wrong tree here in terms of the approach that has been taken in developing the black route, and what that says about our lack of innovation in dealing with a major transport challenge that we have in Wales.

Some technical points have been made about the process that we will follow. Let me just make it clear in my mind. I think we need that pause to take a breath around this time around the changing of a First Minister. I do not believe that we should be having that debate here in the Assembly next week. I think that should happen in the early days of a new First Minister. As I outlined—and the point has been supported by others—this is about ownership of this programme for a new M4, or not, by a new First Minister and, as was rightly pointed out, his or her Government—his or her Cabinet. I believe that we are, in effect, asking for a delay—a slight delay—in order that we hopefully can move quicker towards a more innovative solution for the transport challenges of south-east Wales and that M4 corridor, which, as I expressed earlier, we certainly recognise do exist.

So, I hope that people will see today's vote and today's discussion for what they are: a signal of this Parliament's wish that the incoming new First Minister applies the utmost clarity to consideration of what is in our best interests as a nation when it comes to that decision on the new M4. I'm grateful for the signals that this motion will be supported this afternoon, and I look forward now to seeing the new Government and the new First Minister saying, 'This is our decision—a decision that we are not willing to take, or that we are willing to take, and face the consequences upon it.'

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.