The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

That brings us to the Plaid Cymru debate on alternatives to the M4 relief road. I call on Delyth Jewell to move the motion.

Motion NDM7066 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Calls for the investment initially earmarked for the Welsh Government’s rejected M4 relief road proposal to be refocused towards the rapid development of a long-term vision for a green and sustainable integrated Welsh transport network, which includes giving priority to addressing the congestion issues around Newport.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales plays a central role in guiding strategic and long-term national infrastructure planning.

Motion moved.

Diolch Llywydd. I would usually like to open a debate like this by setting out why it's timely, but, in many ways, this isn't a timely debate. Improving the M4 has been a matter of debate since before the beginning of devolution. It was first proposed in 1981 by the Welsh Office, yet here we are 27 years later and we are still discussing it.

Let me be clear: rejecting the proposed black route on the grounds of cost and the environment was the right decision. To spend the equivalent of 10 per cent of the Welsh Government's annual budget on one stretch of road that would have destroyed the Gwent levels was not an acceptable course of action. What's more, studies have shown that upgrading roads alone simply leads to more cars using these roads. Our Parliament was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency. I'm very proud of that, and this is one of the, yes, difficult, but absolutely necessary steps that had to spring from that declaration. But we knew all this before Welsh Government decided to spend £114 million and five years of effort on the inquiry and project development. That's £114 million more that could have been spent on a deliverable scheme such as the blue route, which Plaid Cymru supported.

So, here we are back to square 1. Many of us were surprised that Welsh Government didn't have a plan B ready to go, so we're having to begin from scratch with the establishment of yet another commission to consider which of the alternatives to the black route should be pursued. The problems for Newport will not go away on their own. People living in Newport, one of my members of staff included, are desperate for a solution to congestion and pollution that too often spills onto their streets when accidents at the Brynglas tunnels mean that traffic is redirected. It can't be allowed to just get worse. So, we have called today's debate to outline some alternatives that could be considered to help the people of Newport whose concerns, of course, have to be central in these considerations. But we will also look at alternative means of easing congestion on our roads and upgrading our infrastructure to make us a green, sustainable nation fit for the twenty-first century. After all, we now have £1 billion-worth of borrowing powers at our disposal on top of Welsh Government's capital investment budget.

In terms of road improvements, the blue route should certainly be considered alongside other options, including upgrading current roads and intelligent signing that would direct vehicles either onto the new road or the current M4 to keep traffic and trade flowing. What's more, we should consider learning from the Scottish example of paying grants to companies that decide to transport freight via train. Furthermore, Government should look at a programme of freight consolidation, where goods are transferred from smaller vehicles to larger HGVs in order to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road, but this can only be part of the solution.

So, in terms of public transport improvements, options should include exploring express coaches to hotspots, improving public transport from areas like Monmouth and Newport to Cardiff to decrease the pressure on the M4, and bringing forward upgrades to the Ebbw Vale line. One train per hour in lots of areas just is not good enough. And Welsh Government could even look at setting local rail fares. Finally, we could consider providing a free bus service on selected routes for a designated period. It took just four months to set up the free weekend travel on all TrawsCymru services, which raised passenger numbers. Free or half-price travel could have that very same effect. Let's be bold here. The people of Newport and all commuters who are sick to the back teeth of sitting in queues on the motorway need and deserve a resolution to the daily problem that they face. We need a twenty-first century solution that combines modern public transport infrastructure with a sea change shift away from car use.

I hope that these ideas can form the basis of our discussion today. Plaid Cymru will be discussing them internally—we are already discussing them internally—and intend to publish our detailed recommendations in due course. I look forward to hearing ideas from other Members across the Chamber.

I have selected five amendments to the motion, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Economy and Transport to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Object.

No. Formally.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

1. Notes the decision and oral statement made by the First Minister on Tuesday 4th June regarding the M4 corridor around Newport project.

2. Notes the proposed next steps outlined by the Minister for Economy and Transport and an expert Commission to be led by Lord Terry Burns.

3. Recognises the significant congestion issues on the M4 network around the Brynglas Tunnels and the impact it has on Newport and the wider economy.

4. Notes the Welsh Government’s commitment to developing and funding sustainable and effective solutions to congestion issues as part of an integrated, multi-modal and low carbon transport system.

Amendment 1 moved.

No, sorry. Formally.

It was your own amendment. [Laughter.]

I call on Russell George to move amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Russell George. 

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Delete point 1.

Amendment 3—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets the £114 million of Welsh tax payer’s money that has been wasted on developing the M4 relief road proposals.

Amendment 4—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Further regrets the failure of successive Welsh Labour Governments to deliver a solution to congestion on the M4.

Amendment 5—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to urgently provide clarity as to its future plans for resolving the congestion on the M4 around Newport.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I probably agree with the Minister's first response today. Can I thank the Presiding Officer and can I move the amendments in the name of my colleague, Darren Millar? I appreciate the Government won't agree with this—I heard the Minister's comments earlier—but £114 million has been wasted in developing a scheme, as well as the public inquiry, which already looked at 28 alternatives to the M4 relief road. All of the associated evidence has been considered by an independent public inquiry, only for the project to be scrapped, and the Welsh Government has spent a large amount of public money and public funds on preparing for the M4 project and the inquiry, only for the First Minister to reject the findings with, I'm afraid, no real alternative plan or targets in place.

Now, as I said earlier in my remarks to the economy and transport Minister, I am sceptical that the new commission that's been established can come up with any different conclusions in the space of just six months than the public inquiry did, which looked at the issues over many, many years, over a cost of £44 million to the public purse. And I do agree with Plaid's second point to their motion today that I think that the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales is well-placed to look at infrastructure planning in the wider term as well.

Plaid Cymru's motion today calls for the rapid development of a long-term vision for a green, sustainable, integrated Welsh transport network. Well, that should have been exactly what's been happening over the last six years. I'm sure Plaid Cymru would agree with that as well. I've had the opportunity, as have other Members, to look over in more detail the public inquiry report.

Now, my notes are quite extensive on the report in terms of highlighting the conclusions of the inspector when it comes to the consideration of environmental considerations of the Welsh Government's own scheme. Time limits me in what I can say, but I would point out the inspector's conclusions on carbon emissions, which are outlined on page 400 of the report. They say that the Welsh Government's carbon calculations were detailed and thorough, but they have overestimated the generations of emissions:

'the scheme would alleviate congestion and eradicate excessive emissions from stop-start traffic.'

The scheme would not adversely affect the Welsh Government's carbon reduction policies or frustrate its public ambitions for meeting reduction targets, and

'the scheme would, perhaps uniquely, be carbon-neutral over time', and

'would be beneficial for the overall environment'.

That's the conclusions of the inspector in agreeing with the Welsh Government's own proposals. The inspector concluded that the Welsh Government's carbon-related evidence was sound and consistent with the well-being of future generations Act. And I think the point here is—and it's a highly-unusual position to be in—that, in rejecting the scheme, the First Minister seems to be positioning the Welsh Government firmly against not only the Welsh Government's own proposals for the M4 relief road, but also its own legislation, which is on the statute book. The economy Minister gave his view on this matter earlier today. I certainly would be interested in hearing from the First Minister and the Welsh Government Minister responsible for the environment whether they believe that the legislation contained within the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the well-being of future generations Act is sufficiently robust or now requires amendment.

The congestion on the M4 motorway is one of the most worrying examples of, I think, the Welsh Government's poor management, I'm afraid, of Wales's transport network, and, despite the importance of the M4 route, there is still no practical solution to the congestion issues on the road. So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, the rapid development of a long-term vision for a green and sustainable integrated Welsh transport network, which includes giving priority to addressing the congestion issues around Newport, which Plaid Cymru call for in the motion today, I believe would have been largely achieved by the Welsh Government's own proposed scheme.

Llywydd, although there are different views as to the best solutions for the problems on the M4 corridor around Newport, I don't think there's anybody that doubts the seriousness and the gravity of those problems and the need to take urgent action in the short term, as well as medium and long-term action, to deal with those problems. And, obviously, the people of Newport are long suffering in terms of the air pollution, the congestion and the other difficulties involved. So, we do need to have that action.

I believe that what the First Minister has decided is the appropriate way forward. I agree with him that the environmental factors drive the decision that he's made, and the value of the Gwent Levels is very significant within that. Those Gwent Levels are unique, they're historic, they're environmentally very valuable. I am the species champion for the water vole, which is present on those Gwent Levels, Llywydd, and that's just one example of the diversity of life and nature in that area. I was very pleased to take forward a short debate here in the Assembly setting out the value of the Gwent Levels in the round.

And, of course, we've declared a climate emergency, which I believe is absolutely right, and we must follow that through with the appropriate action, strategy and policy. And I do believe that the old 'predict and provide' model of predicting traffic growth and then building new roads to provide for that forecast traffic is largely discredited because, as we all know, what tends to happen is those new roads fill up with more and more traffic journeys and then there are demands for further new roads, and on and on it goes. We must break with that way of doing things and find new imagination and new energy. So, I do believe we need integrated transport, active travel, 20 mph areas in our inner urban zones; I think all of these things help address the air pollution issues and take forward integrated transport.

In my area, in Magor, they have a proposal for Magor walkway station, which the Minister is familiar with, which would help address these problems, getting that modal shift onto public transport. And I know that the Minister will consider an application for £80,000 from Welsh Government to match Monmouthshire County Council funding to take forward a proposal for the new UK new stations fund to take that through to the next stage. Also, there has been quite substantial new housing in the Monmouthshire area along that M4 corridor, and there will be several thousand further new homes. The rail services there, on the Chepstow-Lydney line, along that route, are overcrowded, infrequent and not of the quality in terms of reliability that we need. I think perhaps phase 3 of the metro is a good opportunity to address those issues and help with those M4 problems and modal shift.

I believe there is much we can do, Llywydd, in terms of car sharing, incentivising that through employers providing space for parking to allow the car sharing to take place from particular locations. New apps are proposed, new technology can help; there is much that can be done. I believe we can incentivise freight to get it off our roads and onto rail, and that happens in Scotland, for example, I believe, quite effectively.

In Bristol, they've got a scheme now where the multiplicity of vans that are flying around doing home deliveries are lessened drastically by having a sort of central point where they go to and, rather than having many individual vans driving around delivering packets, they all leave their packets at a particular location and then they're then taken forward by one van rather than any number. So, there are many new ideas, much new energy, and we need to look at this, and I'm sure the commission will, to decide how we can best achieve what the First Minister described, which was many individual measures adding up to a substantial and effective whole.

I would just like to say as well, Llywydd, that it would be important, I think, that the new commission includes in its composition people who have experience and knowledge of public transport, integrated transport, how you get this modal shift, how you get this behaviour change, and I hope that we can get some reassurance from the transport Minister on that front as well. Diolch yn fawr.

It's clear that we need to find a long-term solution for the congestion around Newport, and no-one is denying that; no-one has ever denied that. If the Welsh Government is serious about achieving their goal of a multimodal, high-quality, integrated and low-carbon public transport system, then now is the opportunity to make a meaningful and significant step towards achieving that: £1.4 billion of capital investment has been freed up—just imagine what can be achieved if that is used effectively. The future generations Act requires public bodies to think about the long-term impact of their decisions, to work better with people and their communities and to mitigate persistent problems, such as poverty, health inequalities and climate change. Transport in Wales accounts for 14 per cent of current carbon emissions. If we're genuine about reaching our carbon reduction targets, then it's almost impossible to do that without investing in smart, greener public transport, and this is something that the Government here is lagging behind on.

In the next 10 years, to achieve a reduction of 43 per cent in transport emissions, it's obvious that we've got to do a lot more. We also need to make it much easier for people to change their habits. In 2013, the Government published figures highlighting that 43 per cent of journeys made on the section of the M4 in question were, in fact, under 20 miles, or, in other words, considered to be local journeys. We should aim to be reducing that number to 0 per cent, and that means creating a public transport system that's fit for the twenty-first century European nation that we are. Can we blame people for opting to use their own cars over public transport when it's expensive and in constant decline? We can't even guarantee toilets on certain services now, can we? Now, that feels like going backwards, not forwards, to me.

It's also worth noting that 10 per cent of the traffic on this stretch of the M4 is responsible for the congestion. As we look for solutions to the congestion problem, we should, as a priority, tackle these local journeys. And tackling those local journeys has the potential to reduce that congestion in a big way. Investment in public transport also has the added benefit of making society more equal. Investment in car-based transport systems does little to tackle transport poverty, as it excludes those who do not have access to cars. Welsh Government's own data shows that 23 per cent of households in Wales do not own a private car, and that will, no doubt, correlate with low income or deprivation. A car-dependent transport system is cutting many of Wales's poorest people from employment, from education, from community and social activities. So, investing in an integrated transport system that is affordable and accessible would mitigate transport poverty, as well as increase local economic investment. 

Equal access to public transport, both in social and geographical terms, is essential to achieving effective, sustainable mobility in Wales's urban environments. It's something that can be done and other nations across Europe provide great examples. Luxembourg provides high-quality public transport, and is now going to provide free transport for its citizens. Luxembourg City, the capital, suffers from some of the worst traffic congestion in the world. It's home to around 110,000 people, but a further 400,000 commute into the city to work, and a study suggested that drivers in the capital spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016. The Government plans to invest in transport infrastructure, and it's new mobility strategy, Modu 2.0, envisages a public transport network that carries 20 per cent more people by 2025, with reduced rush hour congestion. The plan includes rail network modernisation, better cross-border connections and the new train-tram-bus exchange hubs, as well as road-related initiatives, with state investment of €2.2 billion by 2023. If it can be done there, then it can be done here, and, with this opportunity that we now have, we urgently need to invest in our public transport.

Many thanks for the opportunity to speak in this debate today. While the Plaid Cymru motion recognises the congestion issues around Newport, I'm concerned that by putting the word 'includes' in the motion, the significant challenge around Newport will be lost, and will divert the focus away from solving this particular problem.

I'd like to say that the blue route is no silver bullet and, for me, is a complete non-starter, which the inspector suggested, and I know that my colleague John Griffiths as well also feels the same about the blue route. The M4 around Newport is the most heavily used road in Wales. It's critical to the Welsh economy, it provides access to industry, ports, airports and is crucial for tourism. The vast majority of this traffic is not local traffic. We cannot see the funding siphoned away to hundreds of different projects. If it is, its impact will be diluted, and Wales's gateway to both England and Europe will still be a road that the independent inspector's report stated does not even meet modern motorway standards.

I'm clear that the money that has been set aside for tackling this specific problem must be spent on doing exactly that—tackling the congestion and air pollution caused by the M4 around Newport. The Welsh Government has given assurances that the commission will have first call on the money that would have otherwise been set aside. They must be given the resources to put their solutions into practice. The commission is due to report in six months, and I know that the Minister has said that it might be able to report back sooner than this. I'm keen to find out how the people of Newport and the wider area will be able to monitor the commission's progress.

The motorway cuts through the city, and local air quality is deteriorating, caused by idling traffic, which pollutes more than flowing traffic. Welsh Government statistics have shown that doubling of use of public transport would only reduce traffic on this stretch of the M4 by 6 per cent. When we talk about local traffic, the 20 miles, I would like to remind Members, can actually include Bristol, and I'm not quite sure that people who live in Bristol think that they're local to Newport. We've already seen a 10 per cent increase in traffic since the Severn bridge tolls were removed. Today's motion and amendment are about where we go from here. This is an opportunity for Newport to be a test bed for some exciting low-carbon projects. But let's be clear; we need to see solutions that work, solutions that will make a very real, improved difference to people who have waited patiently, while the situation's only got worse.

The recent announcement by Newport Transport of 15 electric buses is very welcomed—one to arrive in February, followed by 14 in 2020. This small number is a good start, but they have a fleet of 99 buses, and if we're determined to increase bus travel, we'll undoubtedly need more. I know Welsh Government is having discussions with the bus industry to look at how it can reach a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2028. This is admirable, and certainly something we must achieve. However, what actions can be taken to ensure that every time we replace a polluting bus or taxi, it's not sold on to pollute another part of the country? When congestion builds up on the M4 around Newport, many drivers use their sat navs to try and avoid it. This pushes them onto local roads, taking them even closer to homes and schools—roads that are not suitable to have such heavy vehicles on, or the volume of traffic. I'd be interested to hear what discussions the Welsh Government can have with companies to try to resolve this.

Many ideas have already been proposed that I'm sure the expert commission will examine. A peak time for congestion is during the school run. I believe one suggestion would be to look at Newport to trial free bus travel for all primary and secondary pupils living over a mile's radius from their schools. By enabling pupils to use buses, you not only instil a habit of public transport use in the next generation, but you also free up work opportunities for parents. The price and eligibility for school transport mean many parents currently have no option but to decide between work and driving their children to school. This solution will not solve everything, but could form part of a green and sustainable integrated Newport transport network.

My constituents have waited patiently for over 30 years for something to be done, and they need reassurances that urgent action is being taken. Anything less is not good enough for the people of Newport and Wales.

I do not wish, here, to comment on the pros and cons of the decision of the Welsh Government not to proceed with the M4 relief road. I simply want to concentrate on the implications of that decision and give a brief outline of what I humbly believe will be a cost-effective—one could almost say 'cheap'—alternative, designed to alleviate the problems at the Brynglas tunnels, and thereby, obviously, taking a huge weight off the shoulders of the Cabinet Minister. My submission starts with the premise that the Brynglas tunnels are precisely 369m long. In other words, it is a short tunnel. The Welsh Government has just spent, quite rightly, £42 million on bringing the tunnels up to the latest European safety standards. So, one must ask the fundamental question: why is this relatively minor obstruction causing the turmoil that we see manifest itself in the huge tailbacks that are a daily feature on the approaches to the tunnels, for both westbound and eastbound traffic?

As someone who habitually, almost daily, uses the eastbound approach to the tunnels, I take a keen interest in the causative influences on the traffic flows. I have, in fact, made detailed observations in relation to both light and heavy traffic flows, which lead me to believe that a major factor in causing traffic to slow, resulting in traffic build-up and subsequent long queues, is the speed restrictions that are placed immediately before the Tredegar Park interchange. A speed limit of just 40 mph is often in place from this junction right up to the tunnels themselves—a distance of almost 3 miles. My contention is that if these speed limits were disregarded and substantial lane indicators placed on large overhead gantries, placed at appropriate intervals prior to the tunnels, each containing graphic illustrations of the two lanes that give access to the tunnels, and the inner lane, which gives access to the Malpas turn-off, any safety issues resulting from late lane changes would be largely, if not entirely, alleviated. I assume that is why the speed limits are there in the first place. Indeed, the Malpas exit lane could be made a solid colour-coded line at least a mile prior to the tunnels, and motorists would be warned that any change of lane after that point would attract a penalty fine. Exactly the same signage would operate on the westbound approaches to the tunnels, with exits to Caerleon and Cwmbran being clearly illustrated, and again, penalty cameras installed to avoid lane changes after a certain point. The introduction of these new lane indicators would allow traffic to flow freely through the tunnels at the standard motorway speed, thus negating traffic build-up.

One issue that would have to be addressed is that at present there is access to the M4 from Malpas eastbound, just prior to the tunnels. This would be closed permanently, as would the egress from the M4 immediately after the tunnel for westbound traffic. Anyone who has travelled through Europe will be aware of tunnels that can be a few miles long, often containing several bends, and yet carrying speed restrictions of 100 kph. These tunnels often carry volumes of traffic comparable to those on the M4, but from my extensive observations over many years of travelling through Europe, do not experience the hold-ups that we witness at the Brynglas tunnels. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to my proposals when I publish them in full.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, as the issue of the M4 and the solution to the traffic issues around the Newport and Brynglas areas is something that I have been involved with from day one, since I've been in this Assembly. In fact, I was part of the environment committee's consideration of these proposals that resulted in a report back in July 2014, which was published. I think this very much confirms—and, I think, endorses—the conclusion that has ultimately been reached by the First Minister. I agree with that, and I also agree very much with some of the comments that were made by my colleague John Griffiths in terms of a number of alternatives, so I don't want to go into those again.

One of the conclusions in that report from 2014—. I'll read it, and it has to be read in the context—. Then, we were talking about the possibility that it might be costing £500 million to £750 million, whereas now, the reality is that we are talking about a £2 billion project, if that were to have gone ahead. It said:

'The total cost of the scheme including all ancillary measures remains unclear and the source for funding this total cost uncertain' and

'Given the lack of clarity on the assessment of alternative options, wider public transport measures, the Metro proposals and the potential impacts of electrification it is difficult to conclude on the basis of current information that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this potential investment has yet been made'.

Now, Russell George will remember this report because you were a member of that committee and were in agreement with the report and, in fact, the conclusions that came out at that time.

It's very clear that there needs to be action taken in respect of the situation around Newport and to the infrastructure. But, what I do want to do is to broaden out the debate a little bit on it because this is not just a Brynglas problem. Traffic doesn't magically appear at 7 o'clock in the morning in the Brynglas area and then reappear again by some sort of instance of magic at 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in that particular area. The traffic problem stems far further back, and any solution has to look at the broader traffic infrastructure issues—down from the Valleys, down from Bridgend, down from Swansea, down from the Gwent valleys.

Any solution to it has to also take into account the need to actually provide an alternative mechanism of transport in these areas. And these are areas also where there is massive housing expansion because housing is cheaper. In fact, in the Taff-Ely area, part of which is in my constituency, there are plans over the next decade for 20,000 houses. So, among the options that we have to look at are the broader metro options, and that has got to include the reopening of railway lines, many of which are still predominantly there. The former railway line from Cardiff through Cardiff West, through Efail Isaf, Creigiau, all the way through to Llantrisant, Beddau and connecting to Pontyclun, is still predominantly there. If we are building 20,000 houses in these areas, many of these people without an alternative transport system will be on the M4, will be driving down to Brynglas and down to other areas.

So, what we do need is a very broad and comprehensive transport infrastructure plan that encompasses the Valleys area of south Wales, that looks at where the traffic is coming from, and is there to provide a real solution. I'm absolutely clear that, if we were to have proceeded with the black route, it may have provided some temporary relief for a couple of years, but then in five years' time, we would be exactly back where we started from. The only real alternative is to allow people the opportunity I think most people want, and that is not to have to take their cars on these journeys, but to use an alternative public transport system. We have to ensure that we provide that alternative public transport solution.

The Minister for Economy and Transport—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to be responding to this debate this afternoon. It's an incredibly important subject, and I'd like to thank all Members for their contributions today. As Members were informed just last week, and as we have debated here today, the First Minister decided not to proceed with the M4 corridor around Newport project, otherwise known as the black route. The reasons for that decision and the important next steps were presented in my written statement.

The First Minister and I have been very clear indeed in those statements and decisions that we remain absolutely committed to addressing the problems of congestion on the network in south-east Wales. In the short term, I've asked my officials, working with partners in the Cardiff capital region and Newport City Council, to bring forward a suite of measures to provide modest but immediate benefits to the road. As I've also stated, I'm appointing an expert commission to make recommendations on the next steps for the transport network in south-east Wales, and the terms of reference of the commission were published alongside my statement—[Interruption.]—I'm very tempted to. I have carefully considered the question of whether the national infrastructure commission should have been tasked with this particular piece of work, but, Llywydd, I judged that this significant and immediate piece of work may prevent them from moving ahead with other crucially important pieces of work that must be considered in our long-term interests. That said, I am keen that they have input into the work of the expert commission.

I'm pleased that Lord Terry Burns will chair the commission, and I spoke to Lord Burns on Monday of this week and said to him the commission should be able to consider all solutions, but that they must take into account the reasons for the First Minister not proceeding with the black route. And I will, Llywydd, ensure that the commission considers the solution that was kindly shared with us today by David Rowlands, together with any other viable proposals from Members in this Chamber. I expect an interim report within six months of the commission's formation, but I've been very clear in saying that the chair should be able to bring forward viable suggestions that can be delivered in the short term between now and the end of those six months if he feels that they could be delivered.

The First Minister has already been clear that the recommendations put forward by the commission will have the first call on funding set aside by the Welsh Government to resolve the issues that we see on that part of the network. But we've also been clear with Members that those solutions must represent good value for money. And it will be for the commission to consider all solutions. We will not be entertaining any pet projects, as I said in my written statement, outside of the commission's work. Now, whilst there will always be competing demands for funding, we are clear that delivering sustainable solutions to the significant challenges along this transport corridor is a top priority, and I can assure Members that the development investment since 2013 will not be wasted and will be put to good use by the commission, making sure that it is fully informed in terms of transport modelling, environmental surveys and all other factors in play across the region.

I have to say to Members, anybody who has read the report could only conclude that the blue route should not be considered at all. The blue route was absolutely trashed in the inspector’s report, and I really don't understand how Members who claim to support a climate emergency could support the blue route, or indeed how Members who oppose the spending of £1 billion on the black route could support the spending of £1 billion on the blue route. [Interruption.] I’ll give way in a moment, but first of all, I’ll just say, for the benefit of the Member, if he hasn’t yet had the opportunity to read the report and the inspector’s decisions in regard to the blue route, on page 460 he concluded that, at 2015 prices, the blue route would not be £350 million, but £838 million, meaning that it would be considerably higher still in 2019 prices. On the very same page he outlines why the blue route would have a negative or very low benefit-cost ratio, in contrast to the black route’s 2:1 BCR. On page 459, he says the blue route would be inadequate, be unsustainable, would perpetuate avoidable carbon burn and local air pollution, and that the blue route would be severely deficient in terms of offering relief to the motorway, both in the short or long term, and would thereby be unsustainable. The inspector also said about the blue route that it would have involved building an elevated urban expressway close to where people live and burdening still further an important distributor road. It would have caused dreadful damage for 3,600 families, and it should have been given no further consideration. I’ll give way.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Thank you. I did, previously, promote at least wanting to see further consideration of the blue route. Having read the report, having gone along that route with Professor Stuart Cole, having spoken to more people in Newport and elsewhere about it, I am persuaded by many of the points that the inspector says, and I would like to put that on the record.

I'm very grateful to the Member, actually, because I think it is right that Members take time to digest what the inspector said about those alternatives because, quite clearly, the blue route should not be given any further consideration. And Members, if they read the report, and I do hope they will read the report, will retrieve any support that they've given to date for that particular solution. [Interruption.] Yes, of course.

Could we also put on the record that there is no mention in our motion of supporting a blue route? I've long been of the opinion that there might have been something based around the blue route, but not the blue route itself, perhaps that would be worthy of investigation. To me, that still stands in terms of strengthening and building resilience into the road network. Not the blue route as—

I take the point that the Member states and I'm very pleased for his clarification. I was basing my comments on many previous speeches and declarations from your colleagues in support of the route that has been so roundly trashed in the inspector's report. But I have to say that, moving forward, we all need to recognise that there is deep frustration with the congestion issues on the M4 network, particularly around the Brynglas tunnels, and the impact that it has on Newport and the economy of south-east Wales. I can assure you this is a problem that we are determined to resolve.

We have some incredibly exciting and bold plans for public transport in Wales, from the £5 billion plan that we've developed through Transport for Wales for the new and transformational rail franchise and metro, to major legislation that will help to re-regulate the bus network, to the biggest investment we've ever made in active travel. There is a huge amount of exciting work taking place right across Wales and it will inspire, it will encourage, and it will enable modal shift, which is so very important. 

I think Jayne Bryant's point about needing to avoid the cascading of high-carbon emitting buses when we introduce a new fleet of zero-emitting vehicles is very important. We'll use the bus services support grant to prevent this from happening and we will also look at developing a scrappage agreement with bus operators. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are committed to resolving the congestion issues around the M4 as part of our ambitious plans for transport in Wales and I have confidence that the commission can take us forward in the shortest possible timescale to meet that need, but I'd finally make two points. First of all, I'd say this to Members—don't suggest people should change their modes of transport unless you're willing to change yours as well. And finally, for the three years that I've been in this role, I've been giving very serious thought to the free public transport model that some Members have recently been speaking about, but in order to reach the point where we could deliver this, we first need to legislate and we first need to introduce the reforms—those radical reforms that I've outlined in the White Paper. For that reason, I do hope that Members across this Chamber will support me in implementing those radical reforms and bringing forward that legislation.

Thank you. Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to those who have participated.

Thanks to everybody who's taken part in the debate this afternoon. I've sensed real frustration this afternoon and, in fact, over the past week or so, and I share much of that frustration. I've heard frustration from a local Member that the pulling of the black route leaves an unresolved issue for her community. We've heard frustration about money wasted, about time wasted, indecision and lack of leadership. I certainly share that frustration. But whilst, yes, we can at this point—and it's more than that—look back, in a way, and ask how and why we ended up in this situation, we have to move forward now. I think this afternoon has been an opportunity—and there will be more, including a debate in Government time in a fortnight—for us to start thinking creatively about ways to address the issue. [Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

Just very briefly, with those opportunities to look at innovative ways that we could release capacity on that very important M4 corridor, one way is to shift the massive growth that we now have in package transport up and down the country, coming from Bristol, Avon, but also west Wales as well. So, innovation such as the rail operations group, with their proposals to actually refurbish carriages, put 100 mph trains—not the old-fashioned, heavy industrial freight—and actually bringing on palleted goods onto vehicles and shifting them across the country. Things like that we should be pioneering in Wales. 

Thank you for the intervention. I shall be launching a leak inquiry immediately after this debate to find out who passed my speech on to you—[Laughter.]—because I was also going to be talking about that as an innovation, because it certainly is an innovation. We heard suggestions about moving light freight onto heavier freight road vehicles. That's a way of doing it. Another potentially more exciting way is exactly that—moving roll cage sized packages onto passenger-type trains that can be offloaded and loaded in stations, on platforms in our town and city centres. So, there are innovations, and a lot of the answers to what Wales will look like in 2050 aren't inventions that haven't yet been made—we already have the technology, we already have the innovations in place. [Interruption.] Yes, certainly. 

And talking about innovations, I know that you're very interested in the electric car revolution, and the electric car revolution and autonomous vehicles give an opportunity for getting more capacity out of our motorway network, because cars that can communicate with each other via computer actually don't need such great stopping distances. So, there are all sorts of things happening with the road network as well and cars in the future that would alleviate some of the congestion problems in Wales. 

Indeed, this is very much a speech by committee and I'm glad that everybody's on the same page in terms of looking at all these innovations and solutions that are already out there. 

What about car sharing? 

Car shares have been listed, and, obviously, investing in public transport in a much deeper way than is currently planned, looking at how we investigate free public transport in order to use that incentive—the financial incentive to get people out of their cars. We've heard Professor Mark Barry recently talking about changing working times in different parts of the south-east Wales economy, so that people travel at different times. I was at Imperial Park, the industrial park on the west side of Newport this morning, and it struck me, as so often it does when I go to a business park, it was rammed with vehicles. It was rammed with vehicles, not just in the car parks of the factories and the business units, but all along the roads in, which tells me that something is wrong. People are not being persuaded or being offered different ways of getting to their workplace. So, the innovations are out there.

And we need to strike, I think, a very careful balance or a number of balances. We need to move swiftly but we can't move rashly. The commission that is being set up now, as we've heard from the Minister, will be looking at action that can be taken immediately, but, at the same time, we need right now to be planning for the longer term. We've got to have a focus on finding a response to that road-based issue that has driven this agenda—that is, traffic congestion on the M4 around Newport—but at the same time doing it in a way that takes a wider look at the transport landscape in the Newport area, yes, as a matter of priority, which hopefully we're making clear is important to us as a party, but also at a strategic Wales-wide level. And remembering that, of course, we do have potentially now a release of capital that was ready to go, but can be used on a wider strategic plan. 

We mention in our motion a rapid development of strategy. Again, rapid development of strategy, yes, but not a knee-jerk sticking plaster-type plan. I'll certainly give way. 

Can I just take this opportunity to say—and I know the Member will be keen for me to reiterate this point—that not all of the money that was allocated to the black route is available for a road-based solution or for interventions purely on the M4? Because, of course, one of the reasons why the First Minister decided to not grant the orders was because it would have drawn capital from other social infrastructure. So, I think it's just important that we recognise that all of that money that would have gone into the M4 relief road would have led to fewer hospitals being built, fewer houses being built. And so it's important that we take forward that social infrastructure alongside any investment in the road.   

Yes, and it's a fair point to make, but we also have to be aware and remember that we were willing to consider spending a significant amount of money on a single scheme, otherwise it would have been killed dead a long, long time ago. We have to now be brave and look at ways that we can use, again, significant investment in looking at the issues in the south-east of Wales plus more wide strategic planning Wales-wide.

I think most points have already been made, so I'll wrap up by saying that, you know, the clock really is ticking now and it's time to be creative. I think we should be looking now to be creative in delivering for Newport and the south-east of Wales, but I genuinely believe that, by providing a response to an issue in Newport and the area, that city can be a pathfinder, a groundbreaker, if you like, for the whole of Wales, and it'll be the people of Newport and the south-east of Wales who will perhaps benefit first from a new drive that has been allowed by the cancelling of the black route towards a new way of providing transport and a new way of thinking about transport and how we get around this country of ours. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without the amendments. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.