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.