And that brings us to the statement by the First Minister on the M4 corridor around Newport, and I call on the First Minister to make the statement.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Following my written statement to Members earlier today, and publication of the report of the public inquiry into the M4 corridor around Newport, I can now set out further details in relation to my decision on the proposed M4 relief road, and the next steps to alleviate traffic congestion on the current M4. 

Since late February, I have carefully considered the report and the recommendations of the public inquiry into the M4 corridor around Newport. As Members will be aware, the report is a very substantial document, reflecting the work undertaken by the inspector between February 2017 and September 2018, and the many hundreds of written submissions made to that inquiry. The decision as to whether to make the Schemes and Orders, which are necessary for the project to be implemented, falls solely to me as First Minister.

My decision has to reflect the context within which it is made, Llywydd. We are still deep into the longest and deepest period of austerity in any of our lifetimes. It has seen our capital budgets cut consistently since 2010. My ministerial colleagues and I grapple every day with balancing the financial implications of our Government investment priorities.

Llywydd, the Cabinet met at the end of April to discuss the overall financial situation facing the Welsh Government, and the capital spending needs of the coming years across all portfolios, in order to give careful consideration to our forward capital programme. Cabinet concluded that the significant level of expenditure needed to deliver the M4 project would have an unacceptable impact on our other priorities in areas such as public transport, health, education, and housing. It did so, as I said, by placing those capital investment decisions in the wider financial context faced by the Welsh Government.

Llywydd, this is a decision being made at the point of maximum uncertainty about our financial future. Unprecedented austerity in the public finances is combined with a complete lack of clarity over our capital budgets for the coming years, and is exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, while we know that the UK Government’s lack of progress in bringing forward a comprehensive spending review could see the Welsh Government’s budget even lower in the future than it is today.

This financial position has significant and specific implications for the exercise of my powers to make the necessary compulsory purchase orders for the project to proceed. In this regard, and before deciding to make any CPOs, I am required to be satisfied that there is a compelling need for such orders and that they must be in the public interest, and that that, together, must justify interference with the human rights of those with an interest in the land required for the project. I must be satisfied that the necessary resources to carry out the project would be available within a reasonable timescale and that the project is unlikely to be blocked by any other impediment to its implementation. Llywydd, I have concluded that the financial position means that I cannot be satisfied that I can lawfully exercise my compulsory purchase order powers in relation to the project, because I am not satisfied that the project can be implemented within the foreseeable future, given the prolonged period of financial uncertainty we face.

Now, Llywydd, in light of this conclusion, it is actually unnecessary for me to go on to consider whether the advantages of the project outweigh its disadvantages and whether I agree with the inspector’s overall conclusions as to where the balance between advantages and disadvantages lies. Nevertheless, I have proceeded, as the inspector did, by addressing, as he says in paragraph 8.481 of his report, the ‘strong and competing interests’ at play and the question of where the balance between those competing interests should lie. I have therefore considered the advantages and disadvantages identified by the inspector, and I have concluded that, even without the Cabinet’s position on funding, and even if, on those grounds, it was likely that the project would be implemented, I would, in any event, have decided not to make the schemes and orders.

I recognise the inspector’s conclusions as to the advantages and disadvantages of the project. However, I attach greater weight than the inspector to the adverse impacts that the project would have on the environment and ecology. In particular, I attach very significant weight to the fact that the project would have a substantial adverse impact on the Gwent levels sites of special scientific interest and their reen network and wildlife, and on other species, and a permanent adverse impact on the historic landscape of the Gwent levels. As a result, in my judgment, the project’s adverse impacts on the environment, taken together with other disadvantages, outweigh its advantages. In weighing up the inspector’s ‘strong competing interests’, my judgment as to where the balance between those competing interests lies ultimately differs from his. For these additional reasons, separate to those on the grounds of funding, I do not consider that there is a compelling case in the public interest to expropriate the land that is subject to the compulsory purchase orders, and I do not consider that it would be appropriate or expedient to make other schemes and orders. 

Llywydd, just as my decision has had to take into account the latest and changed financial context facing the Welsh Government, so too future solutions to the congestion issues on the M4 around Newport must reflect the most recent environmental challenges we face as a nation. Two significant recent reports have highlighted different aspects of these challenges. The first is the UK Committee on Climate Change ‘Net Zero’ report on climate change, recommending a new 95 per cent target for emissions reduction in Wales by 2050. In response, the Welsh Government, recognising the scale and urgency of the threat, declared a climate emergency. Secondly, last month, the United Nations published its global assessment on biodiversity. That report set out the scale of the impact that human activity and development is having on species, and the threat that further development is likely to pose to ecosystems across the world. Llywydd, the findings of that report apply equally to us here in Wales.

Now, Llywydd, I acknowledge, of course, that there are strong views on both sides of the debate in relation to this project. There is a consensus, however, and a consensus that I share, that the issues of capacity, resilience and environment at the M4 corridor around Newport do have to be addressed and that they will need a mixture of both local and regional solutions. In light of the funding constraints and the environmental impacts that have led to my decision on the orders, it is important that those issues are now addressed collaboratively, and that voices on all sides have the chance to shape the way forward together. It's in this context that I announce today a new commission that will be appointed—a commission of transport experts charged with reviewing the evidence and making recommendations to the Welsh Government on alternative solutions to the problems faced at the M4 corridor around Newport. Those suggestions can include innovative technologies and other measures to address those current problems. 

The commission will be guided by our overarching ambition to develop a high-quality, multimodal, integrated and low-carbon transport system, and the context of the major challenges of climate change and biodiversity that I have set out already. The commission will be drawn from a spectrum of expertise, and it will be supported in its work by a dedicated team within the Welsh Government. Ken Skates, the Minister for Economy and Transport, will make further announcements on the commission, including timescales—making those announcements to the Assembly tomorrow. In advance of the commission’s work, the Minister will implement a series of fast-tracked, targeted interventions to alleviate congestion on the M4, for example actions to expedite recovery of vehicles, enhanced traffic officer patrols, live journey information to inform better transport choices, and a behavioural campaign to reduce accidents and incidents and to make maximum use of existing lane capacity.

Llywydd, transport is an area, as we heard in the question posed to me by the former First Minister, where this Welsh Government has bold and ambitious plans for the future, from the £5 billion plan we have developed through Transport for Wales for the new rail franchise and metro, to major legislation to improve bus services, to the biggest investment in active travel ever seen across Wales. 

Resolving the congestion issues around the M4 is an important part of those plans, but there are, as we see from the inspector's report, no easy or uncontested answers. We are committed to taking an inclusive and collaborative approach to finding innovative, affordable and sustainable solutions in the shortest possible timescales, and we look forward to working with others to achieve that ambition.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? As we on this side of the Chamber have been saying for many years, this congestion on the M4 is a foot on the windpipe of the Welsh economy. We have seen a 10 per cent increase in traffic flows as a result of the scrapping of tolls on the Severn, thanks to the UK Government, so a solution is needed now more than ever. We know that £31 million is being lost just to motorists on that stretch of road every year. Now, people have been talking about the need for a solution for the M4 for decades, and we are now no further forward than when we began. In fact, a solution was first talked about by the then Secretary of State for Wales, William Hague, at the end of the 1990s, and, quite clearly, this problem should have been sorted out 15 years ago. Perhaps if it had been dealt with then, you wouldn't be using austerity as a reason for rejecting this project. Clearly, successive Welsh Labour Governments have failed to deal with this issue. We need less of your dithering and more action to resolve the challenges facing modern day Wales, and what we've seen today is more dithering and kicking a solution into the long grass.

Now, today, First Minister, you are saying that this project is not now affordable. However, last year you wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in your capacity as the then finance Minister asking for more money to deliver this scheme. In this letter, you clearly thought then that this scheme was achievable, because this is the letter and this is what you said, and I quote:

'I will be seeking an increase in the Welsh Government's annual and aggregate borrowing limits as we move into the next Spending Review in order that we can deliver our investment priorities for Wales, including the M4 project'.

So, what has now changed, First Minister, and do you accept that the people of Newport were sold a pup? Because during the Newport West by-election, you were out campaigning with a candidate, now the MP, who was promising to deliver an M4 relief road.

First Minister, this morning you have published the inspector's report for us as Members to scrutinise. However, you've had months to consider this. This has been sat on your desk since the beginning of this year. Why on earth didn't you publish this report earlier so that stakeholders and the public could actually scrutinise the inspector's recommendations? You've had six months to look at this report. We and the Welsh people have only had a few hours to look at it. This report should have been published long ago, and this is just another example of your Government failing to be open and transparent with the Welsh people.

Let me remind you, First Minister, what this report tells us. It tells us that the inspector was looking at your Government's own proposal. You were part of the Cabinet that agreed to cost this particular inquiry. Do you now think that the £44 million spent on this project therefore is money well spent? Because you were the finance Minister that signed this off, and it's quite clear to me that tens of millions of pounds have now been wasted on this specific scheme.

First Minister, we were assured by the former leader of the house back in December last year that we as Members would have a binding vote on this very important issue. Given that you've already made this decision, it seems now that a vote will not go ahead, and therefore will you now apologise to this Chamber on behalf of your Government for breaking that specific pledge?

You've made it clear in your statement this afternoon that you are again kicking this decision into the long grass by looking to set up a commission to look at alternative solutions. You say that the Minister for Economy and Transport will make further announcements shortly. Can you therefore give us an indication of when the Minister will be making these further announcements? What timescales will you be giving the commission to report their findings?

In your statement you also tell us that the Minister will implement a series of fast-tracked, targeted interventions to alleviate congestion on the M4 in the interim period, but I have to put it to you, First Minister, that these are sticking plasters. What people want to see is a proper solution to this huge problem. In the 2016 Welsh Labour Party election manifesto, there was a commitment in that document to deliver an M4 relief road. Given the setting up of this commission, do you accept therefore that you will no longer deliver on that pledge in this fifth Assembly? And finally, First Minister, today businesses, commuters and residents in south Wales will be extremely disappointed with your Government's decision, and, unfortunately, the foot on the windpipe of the Welsh economy will clearly continue.

Llywydd, I thank the Member for some of those remarks. Let me deal with a small number of them directly. The report, which I have here, has quite certainly not been sat on my desk over those months. I have spent many, many hours reading the report and receiving advice on it, because that's what this report required. It did not require being put into the public domain without the necessary legal and policy advice that went alongside it. It's available to any member of the public who now wishes to read it, but the decision that I had to make required not simply a very close reading of the report, and more than one close reading of it as well, but extensive advice—legal and policy advice—in order to come to the decision that I have come to today. There's been no long delay. This decision has had, as I promised it would, the level of concentration and the level of consideration that a decision of this sort deserved, and that is what it has had.

The Member is wrong as well, Llywydd, to suggest that matters are just being pushed far into the distance. He asked when my colleague Ken Skates will make a statement. It will be tomorrow. He'll make it to this National Assembly. It will set out the short-term remit that we will put to the commission to come forward with a first set of immediate proposals that can be put to work to begin to alleviate the problems experienced at the M4.

The Member began by saying that the situation at Newport now needs action more than ever—needs 'now', he said. The M4 relief road would provide no relief at all for a minimum of five years. And he said to me that those problems will get worse in the meantime. I recognise the significance of those problems, which is why we will take action to alleviate the problem far sooner than the relief road would have done. And we will begin on that work immediately.

As far as money that has been spent in preparing the report and holding a public inquiry, and making sure that those hundreds of people who put their views to the inquiry and who participated in these proceedings are concerned, I think that spending has been proportionate to the task involved. And I think it is right that, when there was a decision of this level of controversy, we made sure that there were all those opportunities available to people to put their points of view and to have them properly considered. As finance Minister, I did have to be satisfied that that spending was properly being applied. I believe it was. It is the cost of living in a democracy. It is the cost of having a genuinely open process in which people are able to make their contribution, know that it will be heard, and know that the results of that will be properly considered.

Finally to the point that the Member makes about a foot on the windpipe of the Welsh economy—the future of our economy, Llywydd, is not dependent on one stretch of road. The future of the economy depends upon all those measures that we discussed earlier during First Minister's questions, and have led to an economy in Wales where, as I said then, we have a faster rate of business growth than anywhere in the United Kingdom, that those businesses last longer at one year and five years than they do across the whole of the United Kingdom, and where we have more enterprises alive and flourishing in Wales today than at any time in the past. That's the state of the Welsh economy, and it depends on far more than a single course of action of the sort and in the way that he described.

When a Government gets it wrong, admits its mistake and endeavours to put matters right, maybe it's my Sunday school upbringing, but I think the proper response in the first instance is to praise the repentant for seeing the error of their ways. And there will be many, many hallelujahs uttered across Wales in response to this u-turn, as there was to the u-turn last week. And I'm pleased to add our amen on this side to the decision made today.

We repeatedly said in response to this question that the black route as proposed was both environmentally destructive and financially unjustifiable. I think both points have been borne out, really, in the statement that we've heard from the First Minister. Financially destructive for the reasons set out very, very clearly by the future generations commissioner in her evidence to the public inquiry itself; financially unjustifiable because, as the First Minister said, it would have siphoned such a large proportion of the limited borrowing powers that we have and of the overstretched capital investment funds available to the Welsh Government. 

I think we need to pay tribute to the campaigners, both locally and nationally, who urged the Government to safeguard one of Wales’s greatest treasures, the Gwent levels. Now, I would appreciate it if the First Minister could tell us about the role of the important and significant declaration—more significant than ever now—in terms of the climate emergency, given the role of young people particularly, both globally and in Wales, in calling on the Government to make this declaration. And is it true to say that not only, therefore, were we the first nation to make that declaration, but the first nation where that declaration has clearly had a substantial impact on a policy decision of some import, which will have an impact, more than anything else, of course, on those very young people who are campaigning for the decision that we've seen today?

Of course, I think the First Minister would accept that, on our side, naturally, we're going to say that we would have liked this decision to have been made earlier. There clearly is an opportunity cost in here, financially. Perhaps the First Minister could give us, actually, the full estimated total for the cost to the public purse, including the inquiry itself, the traffic modelling, surveying, design and legal costs. But there's also been potentially even bigger opportunity costs in terms of the time that's been lost—the eight years since your predecessor first took us down this path, which has ended up leading nowhere, frankly—which could have been invested, in terms of the energy, the effort, into an integrated public transport system that Wales so desperately needs. Obviously, we're particularly mindful of the problems that Newport faces—it's one of the most car-dependent cities in the UK—but it's also true, of course, that we need a vision for the whole of Wales.

Again, I mean this in the best possible sense, but we have to find a better way, surely, of making these decisions. There is a British disease, and we have a Welsh version of it, where infrastructure investment project costs are rising—we've seen the inflation in this case—the time that it takes to make the decisions is getting ever, ever longer, and, as a result of that, the third element, of course, is that public trust in the process by which we arrive at these decisions is being eroded. In this case, it has to be said that many, many people, seeing as they saw that promise in the Labour manifesto, will have had an expectation, which has now, of course, been dashed, and there has to be a response to that as well. 

Finally, setting up an expert commission—the response to any problem in Wales used to be setting up a committee. We've gone one better—we set up commissions now. Why set up an expert commission when we've just created an independent national infrastructure commission precisely to help us make better decisions in a more agile and adroit way? Why create another commission when we have one already? Perhaps the First Minister could address himself to that question.

Llywydd, I thank Adam Price for those remarks. Let me begin by saying that I want to pay tribute to all those who gave their time and their expertise to the public inquiry on very different sides of the argument. Of course there will be groups who will feel that their views have come through in the final decision, and there were, as Adam Price said, many young people who contributed to the public inquiry making those environmental points, but there were, equally, just as committed people making other arguments, who took a lot of time and trouble to put those views to the inquiry. I pay tribute to all of those who are so motivated to participate in these very important public decisions in Wales that they take the trouble to turn up and to produce documents that argue their case, on all sides of the argument. 

I don't accept, Llywydd, Adam Price's opening premise. When the proposal was re-placed on the table back in 2014, the context was very different, and I tried to set that out in my opening statement. Back in 2014, we had never heard of Brexit. Back in 2014, the Welsh Government had a budget that lasted not just for the rest of that Assembly term, but into the next Assembly term, and we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who assured us that austerity would be over in 2015. In that financial context, the decision to explore the M4 relief road was the right decision. It is the context that has changed and means that I have arrived at a different decision today.

And the Welsh Government has not sat idly by, not investing in all those other things that we know are needed in our transport infrastructure: the metro proposal for south Wales has been developed right through the period that we are talking about, since 2014; the ideas on buses that we talked about earlier this afternoon developed during that period as well. So, we have not stood by doing nothing on that wider agenda of public transport infrastructure while the inquiry proceeded, and we're in a much better position today than we would have been without all that work going on. 

I listened carefully to what the Member said about better ways of decision making, and I think he makes an important point there. The conundrum, which I know he will recognise, is that, in a really difficult decision with so many strong views and so many opposing views, making sure that the process is genuinely open enough for people to feel that they've had their chance and their opportunity to have their point of view heard has an impact on the speed at which decisions can be made. Now, I think he's right that we ought to think together about whether there are better ways of doing these things in future, but the way not to do it, I think, is to cut out the public from the way in which their voices are heard in it—and I know you didn't suggest that at all, but I'm simply pointing to the fact that, if you want to involve the public, that takes time and time is one of the things that slows down decisions and gets in the way of making these things in as timely a way as we would like. 

Finally, to the point that Adam Price made about the national infrastructure commission—of course, we thought carefully about whether that was the right group to go to to get the advice that we needed, but, actually, it's a different job. The infrastructure commission is there to think long term, to think over a 30-year horizon, to advise us on the long-term needs of the Welsh economy and on public services. What this group will do, this expert group, is to focus immediately on those 28 different ideas that the inspector reports on that were alternatives to the M4 relief road, and to a further set of ideas that have emerged since the inspector concluded his hearings, which are practical ways in which the problems at the M4 can be addressed in the here and now. It is a much narrower, it is a much shorter, it is a much more specific piece of advice that we need. It's why the infrastructure commission wouldn't have been the best way of securing that advice, because, quite unlike the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition, I don't want this to take a moment longer than it needs to to start making a difference for the people of Newport in the problems that they face around the M4 today. 

Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. The process leading to today has taken years, cost millions of pounds and created much uncertainty for local residents and businesses. Today, we have a decision. It's deeply disappointing and a bitter blow for Newport. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the independent inspector who led the year-long public inquiry and to all of the public who gave evidence to it. The inspector and his team examined over 100 solutions, including the option of doing nothing. 

While I respect the objections of ecologists, many will conclude that this decision condemns Newport to further decades of heavy congestion, idling traffic and toxic fumes. The current road is not fit for purpose and was never designed to be a motorway. Idling traffic pollutes more than flowing traffic, and persistent congestion means toxins on this stretch of the motorway and the surrounding residential areas are dangerously high. 

The vast majority of M4 traffic is not local traffic. The Government's own estimate suggests a doubling of public transport usage in Newport would remove only 6 per cent of the M4 traffic. In contrast, the volume of traffic coming over from the Severn bridge has risen by 10 per cent since the tolls were removed. How will the commission take into account the traffic travelling from England?

Every time there's an incident or accident or severe congestion at the Brynglas tunnels, motorway traffic is pushed onto local roads, closer to homes and schools. This creates gridlock, choking the city and stopping buses from running on time. While congestion is a major barrier to economic growth in south Wales, it's also the people of Newport who suffer as a result. I've always said that inaction is not an option. The problem around the Brynglas tunnels must not be confined to the 'too difficult' box—that is not good enough. We cannot go back to square one. A sustainable solution has to be found and has to be found quickly. 

I've already heard people suggesting a whole variety of different projects across Wales. Can the First Minister guarantee me that the money set aside for a solution to this specific problem will be used for exactly that—solving the long-standing pollution and congestion caused by the M4 running through Newport?

Finally, the people of Newport will have seen many reviews come and go. It's crucial that the commission does not only consider the opinions of a select few—it must include the people whose daily lives are actually affected. What can you say to reassure them that this commission will report on time and deal with the issues once and for all? 

Llywydd, I thank Jayne Bryant for the many hours of attention that she has given to this matter, for the many meetings that I have had with her on it over the months before I became First Minister, as she seeks with others to find solutions to the problems around Newport. She's been absolutely assiduous in doing that, and I want to give her an assurance that, in coming to my decision today and in setting it out in the way that I have, I am absolutely determined that we will demonstrate to the people of Newport that there are things that can be done in the here and now, far in advance of any relief that a relief road would have provided, to have an impact upon the issues that they face.

Sometimes, Llywydd, the relief road is described as a solution to many problems. I read very carefully, and take very seriously, the things that the inspector said about air quality around Newport, but when Members have a chance to read it they will find that, while the inspector found that 30,000 properties would have air quality improved, he also found that in 29,500 of those properties the impact would be negligible or minor, that only 12 of those 30,000 properties would see a major impact on their air quality. So, the air quality issues are really important. We are more aware of those today than we were even five years ago, but the M4 relief road turned out not to be a solution to the air quality problems faced by the people of Newport, and I think there are other solutions that will have a greater benefit to them. 

I'm grateful to Jayne Bryant for drawing attention to the issue of incidents and accidents, because I set out in my statement those things we think we can do immediately to deal more swiftly with accidents that occur, particularly around the Brynglas tunnel, because, if we are able to have greater patrols, more police presence, different arrangements for clearing accidents away from the motorway so that they can be properly responded to and investigated, then we won't have some of the lengthy hold-ups that otherwise take place, and the motorway will be restored to proper functioning without the impact on surrounding areas that the Member for Newport West pointed to.

Let me deal with the issue of money, because I have said already in my discussions with some of those who will populate the commission that they will have first call on the money that otherwise would have been set aside for the M4 relief road. And I wanted to give them that confidence that, when they come up with practical ideas, the resourcing will be available to put those ideas into practice. I've made that commitment already to them; I'm very pleased to repeat it again this afternoon. When Ken Skates makes his statement tomorrow, he will have more to say about how the commission will operate, its methods of working, and how that will make sure that the voices of local people and others are heard in the decisions that it will make. And I'm sure the Member will want to both ask questions but also to welcome what will be said on that front too.   

We greatly regret this decision. In the First Minister's selective boasts about the Welsh economy just now, he didn't refer to Wales having the lowest wages of all the nations and regions of the UK. He had the opportunity today to do something to relieve the pinch-point that is strangling two thirds of the Welsh economy that relies, to some degree or other, on the M4 to get its products to market. Does he really believe that saying he's going to do something to expedite dealing with accidents and educate people more about avoiding accidents, or setting up another commission—that that's really an adequate response to the scale of the problem? I do welcome him saying he'll listen to all voices, and I do hope as part of that he'll listen to David Rowlands, our spokesperson, on quite a lot of the detailed work that he has done around this.   

The decision letter—you say at paragraph 4.3 that there were nine matters you had regard to. You then mention another three matters at paragraph 4.4. I just wondered if I can ask: is there another document whether you paid any regard to at all, and that document is the Labour manifesto, which said, 'We will deliver a relief road for the M4'. Now, you say at the end of your decision letter that—[Interruption.] You say at the end of your decision letter:

'My decisions may only be challenged by way of a claim for judicial review.'

First Minister, don't you think that your decision may be something that voters may have a view on, given that very clear promise you made in your manifesto, which you've now broken? 

Now, you speak about the timeline, First Minister. You say that, in 2014, no-one had thought of Brexit. It was in January 2014 that David Cameron made his Bloomberg speech saying there would be an in/out referendum. You talk about this timeline. This poor inspector, he was there from February 2017 to September 2018. He had 83 sitting days of evidence. He was told by the Welsh Government—the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, finance Minister, Mark Drakeford—that the funds would be available to fund this. He did all this work on that basis—spent 44 million quid on that basis—yet then you're told, not before 29 April, that, actually, that's all wrong. So, First Minister, on your evidence, you spent three months looking at this report, doing all this work, giving it such extraordinary consideration in such amazing detail, but then on 29 April it was all to no avail because your Cabinet told you, actually, the money's not available. Is that really a credible basis? Can we really believe that you proceeded on that basis?

Finally, I'd like to draw some attention to an inconsistency between your decision letter and what you said just now. Your decision letter mentions only one environmental factor, and that was the Gwent levels—perhaps 2 per cent directly affected by the road, but you put such a different emphasis and judgment on that, compared to the inspector, that that's what drives it. But what you said in your statement just now was, 'Oh, it was the committee for climate change, it was net zero'—it was because you've declared a climate change emergency, notwithstanding that you told us it was only declaratory and wouldn't lead to a change of policy last time. Why is it that you're putting such emphasis on climate change in your statement today but not in your decision notice, and what impact does it have on the climate when you have these vast amounts of congestion of cars pushing out carbon dioxide and other emissions, which would be rather less if those cars were actually moving rather than just stuck there with their engines running? 

What, finally, about the people of Newport who suffer that air pollution, the particulates and the nitrogen dioxide near those tunnels, that's going to get worse and worse for them, along with this pinch-point getting worse and worse for the Welsh economy?

Well, there are a number of matters, I expect, in that, Llywydd. I'll try and address some of them. I don't agree with what the Member says about this being such a pivotal issue in relation to all the other things that can be done to support the Welsh economy and that continue to do that today. If there is detailed work that can be made available, then of course we will be prepared to look at that and to make sure that it is properly considered. I don't think there's much I can say to the Member on the matter of manifestos. At least my party had a manifesto. And, as I recall—I'm not an avid reader of his work in this area but I seem to remember that the UKIP manifesto, which was one of the things on which he has stood, was against the black route. So, I don't think there are many lessons for us to learn from him on that basis.

Llywydd, I should have said earlier, so I apologise that I didn't—I'd intended to say it in answer to the question from Jayne Bryant, but of course I wanted to pay tribute to the work of the inspector and his team. Some Members around the Chamber will know that, in the period since the publication of the report, the inspector has passed away. So, I particularly wanted to make sure that I had taken the opportunity to set out my appreciation of the very detailed work that he and his team carried out and which led to the report. So, thank you for the opportunity of putting that on the record.

The inspector proceeded on the basis that the scheme would be affordable. He says it's not a matter for him to deal with that. He takes it as read that the scheme is affordable. Of course that's what he should have done and I've got no quarrel at all with him deciding that that wasn't a matter for him to resolve. Matters of funding are a matter for the Welsh Government, however, and, as I said in setting out my statement, the decision was mine and, in law, is mine alone. I am informed by the Cabinet's view on this matter but I make the decision. That's the way in which this proceeded.

As to the Gwent levels, the inspector makes it clear in his report—'There is no question', he says at paragraph 8.490,

'that the scheme would have a significant detrimental impact on the historic landscape of the Gwent Levels and whilst there can be some archaeological investigation and interpretation works, that impact cannot be mitigated. This must weigh against the scheme'— the inspector says—

'and I concur with the consensus that the local impact would be severe'.

The inspector, Llywydd, takes nowhere near the cavalier attitude that the Member takes to the impact of the scheme on the Gwent levels. He weighs it up very carefully. He points to the cumulative environmental impacts of the scheme. He explores its impact on biodiversity and on ecosystem resilience. He comes—in the balance that he comes to—to a conclusion that the road should go ahead. But nobody here should believe that the inspector simply dismisses the environmental impact in the way that the Member did. His report is of a very different calibre to the argument we heard a moment ago. 

First Minister, I agree with the decision that you've made, and I've long held that opinion. But I do understand that it was a very difficult decision for you to make, with very strong arguments on both sides of the equation, which I think explains how myself and Jayne, who very much agree on the scale and the gravity of the problems, nonetheless have different views as to the best solution. But there are very strong arguments on both sides and I very much understand that. 

But I do agree that the environmental drivers, the great value of the Gwent levels, which is a unique and historic environment, with great ecological value—in fact, in a recent short debate, I set out the history of the Gwent levels here in this Chamber—that the value of the Gwent levels, and, indeed, the climate emergency that we face, require new thinking, more imagination and new ways of approaching these problems, and that also, the cost is obviously a very real difficulty in going ahead with a road of this scale. And I know many people believe that the eventual cost would have exceeded £2 billion, but whether people take that view, or believe that it would have been contained at around £1.5 billion, it's a very large sum of money, which I believe could be used in much better ways. 

I would like you to agree—I think you already have, First Minister, but I'd certainly like to make the point—that perhaps £1 billion or so of available borrowing must be used for that M4 corridor around Newport, where the problems are so grave and intense. And, I think, with the expectation that's built around the history of the proposal for an M4 relief road, local people very much expect that to be the case. I'd like to reiterate as well what my colleague Jayne said about the need to make sure that Newport people are properly represented in the process that's now going to take place around the commission. And I would say that Newport City Council must have a very strong role in terms of the commission, given that no doubt they will be required to deliver many of the actions that will be necessary to take forward the alternative approach. 

First Minister, could you give any further reassurance as well in terms of the need to take very speedy action to deal with the problems of the here and now? I know you've addressed this already, but you rightly said that it would be some five years or so at the earliest before an M4 relief road would be up and operating, and obviously, we need to do a lot to deal with the problems in the very short term. And that must be uppermost, I think, in the commission's work, and much needs to happen before the commission even begins its work. And I hope we will see that level of urgency and timeliness. 

Could I also say that many of the issues, of course, affect the Monmouthshire council area of Newport East, in my constituency? And I think we're lucky in having communities there that are actually putting forward possible solutions to the problems that we face, including those in Magor and Undy, who propose a new 'walkway' train station. They've been going through the UK process around the new stations fund, and they're currently hoping that Welsh Government will match some £80,000 available from Monmouthshire council to take forward the next stage of that process of applying to the UK new stations fund. So, I hope very much that we'll draw on that imagination, energy and ideas from local communities in addressing these very real problems. 

Finally, First Minister, I wonder if you could say anything about the future generations legislation, because I think many people saw this decision as a major test of that legislation and whether we would see a very new approach from Welsh Government. And I wonder if you could say something about the significance of that legislation in you arriving at the decision you have taken.  

Llywydd, thanks to John Griffiths. I won't repeat many of the things that I've said already in relation to speedy action and the need for new and imaginative solutions. I'll try and respond to the new points that John has made. He's right to point to the fact that, as well as concern about the current expected costs of any relief road, we have to think about how those costs might escalate in the future. The average cost overrun across the United Kingdom of schemes of this sort is 20 per cent, and there are many examples that are far worse, of course, than that. You're bound to take that sort of evidence into account, in a background way, when assessing affordability.

I'll say again that when the scheme was first proposed, as the then First Minister made clear on a number of occasions here in the Chamber, it was on the basis that a new stream of funding—borrowing powers that had never been previously available to this Assembly—would be sufficient to meet the costs involved, and that there would be no need, therefore, to divert funds from other priorities of this Welsh Labour Government in those important fields of health, housing and education, and so on. But I have made it clear to people who will be involved in the commission that the first call on the money that would have been available for a relief road will be theirs, and that they will be able to press ahead with ideas such as those put forward by community councils in the Monmouthshire area—that they will be able to draw on that money to give them substance.

I agree with what the Member said about the involvement of Newport City Council, and I've already spoken to the leader of Newport council today. I spoke to a range of other individuals with a direct interest in it. My colleague Ken Skates has spoken with the CBI, the FSB and other business interests, and I will be meeting them next week. So, we will make sure that all those who have an interest in the decision have a direct line to the Welsh Government.

The Member has asked me about the well-being of future generations legislation. I want to make it clear, Llywydd, that I read very carefully the evidence that was given by the commissioner, and I read very carefully the way in which the QC, on behalf of the Welsh Government, responded to her interpretation of the Act. My own view is that it was not a reading of the Act that I heard expressed on the floor of this Assembly that proposals for development have to satisfy all seven goals and all well-being objectives, and that they have to do so equally across all the goals and the objectives. It does seem to me inevitable that, in any plan for development, there will be some balancing between the different goals and the objectives that the Act introduces. I did not dissent from the view of the inspector, therefore, that the requirements of the Act had been fairly represented by the Welsh Government in the way that it presented its evidence on the Act to the inspector.

Ian Price, the CBI Wales director, said today that this is a dark day for the Welsh economy, pointing out that we've had decades of deliberation, over £40 million spent, and no problem has yet been solved. He goes on to say that economic growth will be stifled, confidence in the region will weaken, and the cost of an eventual relief road will rise. That is the view of business leaders across Wales. Now, you've talked today, First Minister, about a genuinely open process. You've mentioned the words, 'it's the price of living in a democracy'. But, at the same time, you've actively prevented public scrutiny with the decision to withhold the public inquiry report. And you've mentioned you've been flicking through those pages for months; we haven't had the opportunity—other AMs have not had the opportunity to look at that report. Can I ask you to explain, First Minister, why you could have not published that report without the legal advice attached to it?

You say that the cost of the project and the potential demands on the Welsh Government's capital budget mean that you are not in a position to provide funding for this project. The inspector concluded that the project would, of course, constitute sound value for money and deliver considerable advantages. Your own Welsh economist gave evidence to the public inquiry that the project had a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0:2.2, with economic benefits of £2.12 billion. So, do you no longer accept the views of Welsh Government officials and those working on behalf of the Welsh Government that made this case to the public inquiry on your behalf? The transport Minister said in 2016 that the new section of the M4 would be opened by autumn 2021. The building of the road was in the Labour party's election manifesto. It was a pledge in your 2016 manifesto. The leader of the opposition and other Members have asked this question: do you acknowledge that this pledge has now been completely broken?

Also, you have said that the so-called expert commission will now be appointed. Well, what is a two-year public inquiry at a cost to the Welsh taxpayer of £44 million all about if that inquiry didn't discuss all the options in extensive detail? Jayne Bryant has said we surely can't go back to square one. Well, this commission is doing just that. It's going back to square one. That's what this commission is doing. And, finally, I was in this Chamber when the former leader of the house committed—committed—to holding a binding vote. The leader of the opposition has asked the question. You, First Minister, have not answered it. Can you now answer the question on the binding vote that was promised to this Chamber? 

Llywydd, I think the Member's got a number of things wrong there. It shows, I think, an unbecoming degree of flippancy to suggest that the report had been flicked through. Just let me tell him for certain that I have read this report from cover to cover—[Interruption.] I think I heard you the first time, I don't need a second piece of advice. And let me be clear to you that I am the decision maker here. That's what the law requires. That's why I have seen the report and you see it now, because I am the decision maker, and however strong your views may be, Members of the Assembly generally are not. That's what the law requires and that's the responsibility that I have discharged.

Of course you don't see the legal advice. Members of the Chamber surely understand. You asked me why aren't I publishing the legal advice. I heard you ask me. And I'm not publishing the legal advice, because the conventions of Government, as he well knows, mean that that legal advice is a privileged advice available to Ministers, and that has been the case, just as Ministers in his Government in the United Kingdom would never agree to publish legal advice in those circumstances. So, I'm paying him the tribute of answering the questions that he asked. He may wish he'd asked me other questions, but he didn't, and I've answered the ones he has asked.  

We've been round the manifesto question a number of times. I have here a copy of the Conservative party manifesto at the same election. On page 9, it commits his party to electrification of the railway all the way to Swansea—[Interruption.] On page 35, it commits his party to fund a tidal lagoon in Swansea—[Interruption.] The manifesto that we drew up was drawn up in the circumstances that I described. The context has changed, and that's why the decision has changed in that changing context. 

As to a vote, you heard the leader of the house earlier this afternoon say there will be a debate in this Assembly. And had the decision been to go ahead with the relief road, there would have been a binding vote, because it would have come on the budget that is put in front of this Assembly every year, because the decision to go ahead would have committed money, and money is only expendable by Government when this National Assembly votes for that money to be available to the Government. So, there would have been a binding vote in those circumstances. Now, there will be a debate, and there will be an opportunity for Members here to make all the points that they want to make.

And quite certainly, Llywydd, this is a decision not about going back to square one. It is about a rapid piece of work by an expert commission that will bring forward practical proposals to resolve some of the issues that are faced by the residents of Newport in 2019 and 2020, not many years from now when the road might eventually have been constructed and opened for traffic. 

We're now quite considerably over the time allocated by the Government for this statement, and I have many speakers yet to ask a question. And as the Government has said, there will be a debate again on this issue, but I'm going to allow short questions from the remainder of Members who wish to contribute. I'll challenge you first on that, Mike Hedges. 

I'm normally pretty good, Presiding Officer—

You are, you are; that's why I went for you first.

Can I welcome the decision? The traffic problems around Newport at peak times need addressing, but the M25 gives us an example of what happens with new roads: first of all it gets built, then it gets made wider, then it gets turned into what people have described as the biggest car park in western Europe. I want to put forward some suggestions of what can be done. The Heads of the Valleys could be signposted for those of us coming from the north and midlands who want to go west to Port Talbot. I've said this since Edwina Hart was the Minister here. The outside lane on the M4 could be used for through traffic only, so the local traffic stays in the inside lane, the through traffic goes in the outside lane, unless there's an accident. Why can't we stagger public sector start times, so everybody isn't on that road between 8 and 9 every morning, which is when the problems are, and between 5 and 6? I checked this morning at 11:30 and there were no traffic problems there. Finally, can we look at closing some M4 junctions, because that is really—? If you want to know why you've got a problem, you have too many junctions close together on two-lane motorways. That gives you a problem.

I thank the Member for those suggestions. They are of different levels of acceptability, I've no doubt, but what they demonstrate is that there is no shortage of practical ideas that the commission will be able to consider, and I'm grateful to the Member for putting his ideas in front of the Assembly today.

I've been trying to reduce the traffic on the A40 between Raglan and the castle, but I see Mike Hedges is eager to increase it, but there we are. Two quick questions, if I may, Llywydd. Firstly, as we heard earlier, a considerable amount of money has already been spent on the M4 relief road to date in terms of the scoping of the project and also the acquisition of land—I think it's in the region of £40 million. I'm just wondering if you can tell us—. Well, in terms of the land that's been purchased, I think you said earlier that you weren't able to look at other routes, but there is clearly land that's been purchased, so what's going to be done to try and mitigate the effect on the taxpayer?

Secondly, the road was going to cost £1.4 billion. Now that the scheme has been shelved, can I make a plea for you to look urgently at other infrastructure projects in south-east Wales and south Wales and, indeed, across Wales—projects such as the proposed Chepstow bypass in my area? There's tremendous congestion in Chepstow. I think that if people around Newport aren't going to get relief of the M4 road, then at least constituents of mine and other towns in Wales can get some benefit. And finally, Presiding Officer, a little bit closer to home, the eastern bay link is unfinished and, as we know, it's not just the M4 that causes congestion; a lot of traffic piles back on the A48M because there's nowhere for it to go because of the lack of completion of that eastern bay link. I know that's phenomenally expensive, but perhaps with the money that will be flushing around because we haven't actually got the M4 now, the Welsh Government could look at some of the other schemes that could be progressed to help life in Wales.

I thank the Member for those two questions. The land that is now in the ownership of the Welsh Government forms part of the public assets here in Wales and, when those assets are realised, then, of course, that money will return to the public purse.

Llywydd, I did a short calculation myself of all the different new possibilities for public capital expenditure that have been put to me by Members around the Chamber in the time that I have been First Minister. It came to over £2.2 billion. The Member for Newport appears many times on this list. I am not suggesting for a minute that the ideas that he and other Members have put forward are not good ideas, but I think the point he makes is an important one—that there are choices that you face in Government between using the resources you've got for one purpose or another. I've said again that the first call on this money will be for Newport and for dealing with the traffic issues there, but this lengthy list of other possibilities is always on my desk, and the Member for Monmouth's advocacy of improvements around Chepstow, Monmouth, Raglan and others are all firmly on this list, I can assure him.

Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I appreciate your patience in allowing us to go a little bit into extra time. Unfortunately, I can't talk as quickly as my good friend Mr Ramsay over there. [Laughter.] First Minister, I believe that your decision today, history will look back and our future generations will look back and judge that you have made the correct decision, so I applaud you on that.

I did have three questions today. One has been pointed to by John Griffiths, my colleague, on the fact that this was a major test of the future generations Act, but I'll leave that there for the time being. Firstly, First Minister, with respect to the feeling of a north-south divide, would you agree with me that we need to use all the borrowing powers we have on a range of projects across the whole of Wales, all corners of Wales, to improve the well-being of all the people we represent in Wales? And, finally, First Minister, do you agree with me that declaring a climate emergency was the right thing to do, and, as a result, it wouldn't have been in our planet's interests to go ahead with this type of project?

Llywydd, thanks to Jack Sargeant for those points. I assure him that we intend to use the borrowing capacity that we have as a Welsh Government to the fullest extent. Can I point out to Members—as I have reasonably often in discussions with the leader of Plaid Cymru—that every £20 million we borrow for capital purposes costs us £1 million in revenue and that at a time when revenue is particularly short, that has to be put into the balance as well, but the Welsh Government's budget plans allow us to draw down the full amount of borrowing that's available to us? And, of course, the point that Jack Sargeant makes is echoed in what Nick Ramsay said. I've repeated my commitment to Newport and to making its needs the top of the list for money, but all parts of Wales have needs; all parts of Wales have transport issues that they face; all parts of Wales need investment in education, in housing, in health services. And I know that around the Chamber and in the comments that the inspector received, there were anxieties at the amount of investment that was being concentrated in one project and in one part of Wales. So, I understand the point that is being made. For me, none of that detracts from the need to resolve the issues that the report was set up to investigate.

And as far as a climate emergency is concerned, as I said in my statement, that is very much a matter for the commission, to draw up its proposals in the new context that the climate emergency, the UK CCC's report, and the work of the UN now bring to the table in relation to environmental impact.

First Minister, it's a very sad day. I'm not saying this; this is CBI—your Minister just met, you earlier said it. It's their quote in the BBC. It's a sad day for those who want to see the removal of significant barriers to economic growth in Wales; a sad day for those businesses who face increased costs when their lorries are delayed by congestion; a sad day for commuters, for tourists, who are coming in quite large numbers after the removal of the Severn bridge tolls, which earlier was mentioned, and other motorists forced to endure frustration and delay to their journeys to south Wales and Wales; and a sad day for those concerned by the impact on our environment of an increased level of air pollution caused by traffic jams around Newport.

First Minister, I've been living in Newport for the last 50 years; I know exactly. Nobody has yet mentioned the emergency services, police, ambulances and fire brigades, their contribution, what they think, or how much it costs annually for these fatalities, especially from the Coldra roundabout to the Tredegar roundabout, because those few junctions in Newport are so dangerous, especially with the speed limits and the cameras there. One camera makes more money than any other camera in the United Kingdom. That's what I was told.

First Minister, I would like to ask a few questions. What is the alternative? There's congestion—a serious congestion problem in Wales. You heard many speakers here earlier. The convention centre is nearly built in the Celtic Manor. That convention centre itself is going to include more than 5,000 people on weekends. While we're speaking, the Afghanistan and Sri Lanka international match is going on in Cardiff. They're all international sporting events, and other events are happening. Traffic is increasing humongously on the M4 every year. So, could you do something?

I'm not saying that you rejected this black route. I'm saying—. For the last 10 years, I've been listening to debates and questions with the First Minister all the time—hopes being built, but it's never been done. Now you are putting a commission. Have you put a timescale for that? How much cost? The money; how much money are we going to waste? And we are now competing with the world. In an earlier question you mentioned that we are economically great. More income is all about export rather than our budget in this Chamber. So, First Minister, could you do something? Where there is a will, there is a way. We need some road expansion around Newport to make sure the flow of this traffic gets eased and goes through our Wales—different cities. Our leader mentioned it's actually a rotor on our blood vessel that this is for Wales. We need to expand and we need to get it done ASAP. Thank you.

Llywydd, Ken Skates will set out tomorrow the timescales for the convention. I set out in my statement the actions we will take immediately in relation to improving the rate of accidents and incidents on the M4. Let me say, Llywydd, because I probably haven't had a chance to do this so far this afternoon, how much the Welsh Government appreciates the relationship we have with the CBI and other business organisations here in Wales; the closeness with which we have worked with them over Brexit and other important matters; the fact that I will meet with them directly next week to make sure that I have that conversation with them. The Member asked that we should work together to find solutions to the problems of the M4, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

On behalf of the residents of Cardiff Central, I would like to thank the First Minister for the careful consideration he has given to the evidence and the complex issues that surround it. Because I think it's really important in the light of the UK CCC report on achieving net zero emissions and the UN global biodiversity assessment that when the facts change, we need to change our mind.

At least a quarter and up to half of the communities that I represent would've had no benefit whatsoever from the M4 relief road and lots of negative impact. That is because they do not possess a motorcar and, therefore, wouldn't be able to use the M4. Instead, they would have had increased congestion because we know by analysing the data around the traffic running between east of Cardiff and west of Cardiff that 40 per cent of that traffic is actually heading for Cardiff. So, most city regions across the UK have invested heavily in integrated public transport, and now that this public inquiry has concluded with the First Minister's decision, I hope that we will rapidly see a much broader development of the integrated transport system that we now need.

So, I welcome the First Minister's commitments to ensuring that transport experts are going to come up with rapid solutions to the congestion problem around Newport and that that will have first call on the money that's now going to be released because we have to ensure that we are spending value for money. We know that per kilometre, a rail line costs about the same as a motorway but carries between eight and 20 times as many people. I appreciate that rail takes time to be reconfigured, but we need to make better use of existing roads more quickly. Other motorways in Britain have dedicated bus lanes in urban areas, and I hope that the experts will consider that.

Other major routes into cities like Bristol restrict the use of one priority lane to vehicles that have at least two people in them, which, of course, encourages car sharing. And I note that page 58 of the inspector's report confirms that mobile phone data was used by the Welsh Government to inform the traffic projections ahead, and I hope that, therefore, we will be able to commission some half a dozen to a dozen express electric buses that we know are available to ensure that the routes usually travelled by those who are currently clogging up the M4 in order to get to work can be given instantly express bus travel instead.

Llywydd, I thank the Member for recognising the complexity of the decision. I agree with her that there's more work that we can do in relation to data and use of data, and that would allow us to do some of the detailed work that would be necessary to underpin some of the alternative proposals. And I thank Jenny Rathbone, as I have other Members around the Chamber, for being willing to put forward those alternative ideas, so that the work of the commission can begin immediately, by drawing on the range of possibilities that have been identified here, as well as the ones that were rehearsed in front of the public inquiry.

And finally, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like other Members this afternoon, First Minister, I would like to welcome your statement today and welcome the decision. I think many of us have had great concerns about the proposals of a black route for many years, for many different reasons. My own concerns centred not only around the environmental impacts, which would have been quite horrific across the Gwent levels, but also on the very narrow range of economic benefits. When I read of the Welsh Government's economic analysis of the black route a few years ago now, it was very, very clear that the economic benefits were restricted to a relatively narrow band across the M4 itself and wouldn't have any wider economic benefits for the regions as a whole. In fact, my reading of the economic analysis demonstrated that Bristol would benefit more than Blaenau Gwent from this investment by the Welsh Government.

Now, what I'm anxious to understand this afternoon, First Minister, is: in moving ahead, we certainly need to move forward with an urgency and set a very fast tempo for moving forward with alternative solutions. Can we ensure that the economic benefits, the wider economic benefits, are also taken into consideration when assessing alternatives to the black route? It is important, and we've seen this in recent years—a real differential in economic activity rates between the Glamorgan Valleys and the Gwent Valleys, where the Glamorgan Valleys have benefited from Cardiff and the success of Cardiff as an economic driver of growth, and where the Gwent Valleys have seen very limited levels of growth as a consequence of issues around infrastructure and other matters around Newport and parts of the M4 corridor. If we are going to invest—and I hope we will be investing the full budget in this region—then it is important that we have the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people as a consequence of that investment. So, in taking decisions, First Minister, I hope that you and the economy Minister will take into account the economic impacts of the investment that's being made in this infrastructure.

Llywydd, can I thank the Member, because he's made a point that hasn't been raised otherwise in the discussion and it's an important one? I agree with him—I think the investment that will be made around Newport will still be, with these alternative mitigating measures, one of the largest investments in solving a problem that has faced any part of Wales, and it is absolutely right that there must be the widest possible economic benefit from that very significant investment that will be made. And the commission will certainly look at the wider impacts of the different investment propositions that it will put to Government. It will do so now within a regional economic development approach that we have developed here in Wales that I think will help answer the question that the Member has raised as to how the money that will be spent at that point around Newport will have that wider economic benefit further up the Gwent area. And it's why, around the table of the commission, we will have voices that will help to make sure that exactly that wider benefit is driven out from the very significant investment that will now be made.

Thank you, First Minister.