The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be deselected.

Item 5 on the agenda is the Welsh Conservatives debate on roads, and I call on Russell George to move the motion.

Motion NDM7274 Darren Millar

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the importance of roads as vital economic arteries which promote prosperity.

2. Acknowledges the adverse economic and environmental impact of poor road connectivity and congestion.

3. Regrets that the First Minister has taken the unilateral decision not to proceed with the M4 relief road in spite of the support offered by the UK Government.

4. Calls upon the Welsh Government to:

a) work with the UK Government to deliver an M4 relief road as soon as possible;

b) develop proposals for a major upgrade of the A55 trunk road and the dualling of the A40 to Fishguard;

c) engage with the UK Government to progress the delivery of a Pant/Llanymynech bypass.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to move the motion for our debate today, listed in the name of Darren Millar, and in doing so also say that we will, of course, not be supporting the Government's usual 'Delete all' amendment, but we will be supporting Plaid's amendments 2 and 7.

I'd like to think that all of us in this Chamber can agree that a fit-for-purpose road network is vital to support our country's longer-term social and economic development. Our road transport network is crucial, of course, for future productivity, to ensure that we are competitive. It supports productive labour markets and is the arteries of domestic and international trade. I think we can all agree on that.

But I'd suggest that now, more than ever before, the Welsh economy requires the support of an effective and reliable road network in order to support Wales's long-term economic growth and in order to minimise the environmental impact of poor road connectivity and congestion. The current state of the Welsh road network means that Wales is unable to capture and lever in the drivers of economic activity. Congestion on Wales's roads is directly preventing Wales from achieving a step change in its level of productivity, which in turn is depressing the growth of Wales's wages and output. I'm sure that we'd all want to claim that we don't want to see that.

We don't have a good and effective road network in Wales, and when it comes to schemes that are coming forward, they are so often not managed well. Members who were in this Chamber earlier today will have heard me question the Minister in regard to a number of road schemes that are behind schedule and over cost due to poor procurement and poor management of those road delivery schemes. We are in a position where our current road transport system is unable to cope with the current level of demand.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you, Russell, for giving way. Russell, I've got the pleasure of being, with you, a member of the all-party group on active travel, and I know your commitment to sustainable travel as well. If he, like me, agrees with the sustainable transport hierarchy, a real hierarchy about who should be using our roads, and he talked about the importance of freight—I absolutely agree with him on freight—how should that apply to our road network and the decisions that we make?

Well, one doesn't have to not complement the other. I represent a constituency in mid Wales and, I have to say, it's very different to your constituency, with respect. You just can't—the public transport is not there. Unfortunately, to get to your nearest school, you're 10 miles away. You have to have an effective road infrastructure. But I don't disagree with you at all; I think they're compatible and both are important. We heard an earlier question today from Helen Mary Jones in regard to electric vehicle charging points and infrastructure as well, and we need to have road infrastructure for the expansion of electric vehicles also.

I will perhaps highlight some of the issues that I raised today in my questions to the Minister. The delays and the cost overruns associated with A465 Heads of the Valleys route, I'm afraid, perfectly highlight the Welsh Government's poor track record when in comes to the management and delivery of specific road improvement schemes. I mentioned a couple of others as well. Perhaps the Minister will have more time in this response to deal with perhaps how procurement and contractual agreements can change in order that we don't see these kinds of poorly managed schemes in the future.

One of the worst and most worrying examples, I think, of the Welsh Government's poor management of the road network in Wales is of course the level of ongoing congestion on the M4 motorway—a strategic road that has been blighted by huge levels of traffic congestion for many years, and the Welsh Government is yet still unable to provide an adequate solution to that problem. While the Welsh Government has been dithering and shelving any meaningful schemes, the volume of traffic on the M4 is increasing.

It is with huge disappointment, I think, that the First Minister—and I'm pleased that he is in here to listen to this debate this afternoon; I'm grateful for that—has made that decision not to proceed with the M4 relief road, in spite of the support offered by the UK Government and support from businesses across Wales and support from Members in this Chamber, including from the Government's benches as well, and of course as a result of the very expensive independent inquiry, which concluded that the M4 relief road should be built.

The Planning Inspectorate report found that the Welsh Government's assertion that it would be inconsistent with its declaration of a climate emergency is incorrect. The report found that

'the scheme would save about 4,324 tonnes of user carbon emitted on the Welsh road network each year, with increasing savings into the future'.

Furthermore, of course, the economic benefits of the M4 relief road are clear. With the economic benefits to building the M4 relief road outweighing the costs, the scheme would have been a good value-for-money scheme. Instead, the Welsh Government, of course, wasted that £144 million on the inquiry, only to reject its findings because it didn't suit the First Minister.

Will you give way?

Yes, absolutely.

I thank you, and I agree with some of the points that you made. There will be arguments continuing for and against road expansion, not just around the M4, but it'll be Briton Ferry next, because—. The question for us as supporters of sustainable transportation is: to what extent do we advocate shifting unnecessary journeys off the whole of that stretch? So, we allow the white van man and woman to transport the goods the final couple of miles. So, we allow those who have no other option. Because this isn't rural Wales that we are talking about anymore; this is urbanised Wales.

Sorry, I heard most of your points, but I couldn't hear some of your points because my own side were talking. [Laughter.]

He was heckling you. [Laughter.]

They weren't heckling me. [Laughter.]

I think some of your points that I heard were fair points; I don't disagree, Huw, at all. But I think that my response would be—. Well, I quote back the Minister for economy and transport himself, who said:

'over the 60-year appraisal period, there is more than £2 of benefit for each pound spent on the scheme, without touching on the wider economic benefits likely to flow from the scheme, such as a stronger perception of Wales as a place to invest, which cannot be captured.'

So, I'd counter-argue what you say with that, which is the view of the Minister. In fairness, I think he probably agrees with that view still today. Perhaps he can inform us at the conclusion.

On top of that, the UK Government has provided the Welsh Government with the levers that are needed to proceed with the project, as well as ensuring that the capital budget has grown by over 45 per cent over the current spending review period. The UK Government has also committed to continue working with the Welsh Government on how to strengthen the Welsh economy and provide greater connectivity as well. [Interruption.] I can hear the First Minister talking as well, but I would say to the First Minister today, who seems to be engaged in this debate today, I call on him to rethink his plans and deliver the M4 relief road as soon as possible, although I don't think that he's going to change his position as a result of today's debate, unfortunately.

Other major road schemes in Wales have failed to receive the improvements that they require to ensure that they are better able to meet the demands of Welsh road users: the A55 in north Wales is an example that has long suffered from underinvestment; there's the A40, which has also experienced a lack of effective upgrades over the last 20 years; and we're also calling for proposals to be developed for major upgrades to the A55 trunk road; and, of course, I have to mention—I can hear Paul Davies talking to my left—the A40 road to Fishguard, which Paul Davies so often mentions.

Of course, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Pant-Llanymynech bypass in my own constituency, as well as focusing attention on other north and south links to Wales. When it comes to the Pant-Llanymynech bypass, I can see that the Welsh Government has engaged positively with the UK Government on that in the past, so I hope for some positive contribution in that regard. But, we need to have—. Huw Irranca has commented on a number of occasions in this debate today; I don't disagree with what he has to say. I think it's both having effective road schemes as well as having effective public transport and active travel. They are combined together. They don't compete against each other.

We do need to have a road network that is suitable for making sure that Wales's economic prosperity grows. To remain a competitive Wales, we need to have an efficient road network structure in place. I look forward to Members' contributions to this debate, and commend our motion to this Parliament.  

Thank you. I have selected seven amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the climate emergency and the cross-party consensus that exists to realising net zero emissions, including decarbonisation of the Welsh road and public transport network and achieving modal shift.

2. Acknowledges the interdependence of road and rail infrastructure and the importance of the Welsh Government’s £5bn rail service, bus re-regulation and record investment in active travel in delivering a low-carbon, multi-modal transport network which will play a part in alleviating traffic congestion on roads.

3. Regrets that road traffic congestion has been exacerbated by the UK Government’s £1bn underfunding of transport infrastructure in Wales and failure to electrify the mainlines in north and south Wales, leading to increased traffic on our trunk roads.

4. Further regrets that the UK Government’s decade of austerity has had a direct impact on the maintenance of the UK’s road network.

5. Calls upon the UK Government to:

a) make a similar commitment to the Welsh Government to fund a comprehensive package of borderland road and transport projects to improve strategic arterial routes into Wales including the Broughton Corridor around Chester; the A5 from Shrewsbury to Wales and at Pant/Llanymynech;

b) help alleviate congestion on the road network by pledging £1bn to electrify the mainline from Crewe to Holyhead, invest in the upgrading of the Wrexham to Liverpool Lime Street line and fully electrify the South Wales mainline.

6. Notes the decision and oral statement made by the First Minister on Tuesday 4 June 2019 regarding the M4 corridor around Newport project and the significant work being undertaken by the South East Wales Transport Commission to develop sustainable and effective solutions to congestion in Newport and the wider region.

7. Welcomes the Welsh Government’s commitment to reduce road traffic congestion, including an unprecedented £1bn package of improvements to road and transport infrastructure in North Wales, including major upgrades of the A55 and A483, active travel schemes and the North Wales Metro.

Amendment 1 moved.

Moved.

Thank you. I call on Helen Mary Jones to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Amendment 2—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point after point 2 and renumber accordingly:

Recognises the importance of investment in green public transport in tackling the climate emergency and in easing road congestion.

Amendment 3—Siân Gwenllian

Delete point 3 and replace with:

Affirms the principle that the Welsh Government should be accountable to the Welsh electorate and this Senedd for road and public transport infrastructure priorities in Wales.

Amendment 4—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point after point 3 and renumber accordingly:

Rejects any attempt by the UK Government to determine the road and public transport infrastructure and spending priorities of this Senedd on its behalf.

Amendment 5—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point after point 3 and renumber accordingly:

Regrets the failure of both the Conservative UK Government and Labour Welsh Government to deliver a Wales-wide package of infrastructure investment in the road and public transport network.

Amendment 6—Siân Gwenllian

In point 4, delete sub-point (a) and replace with:

'ensure the rapid development of a long-term vision for a green and sustainable integrated Welsh road and public transport network, which includes giving priority to addressing the congestion issues around Newport;'

Amendment 7—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new sub-point at end of point 4:

'improve transport links between north and south Wales.'

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm grateful, I must say at the beginning, to Russell George for agreeing to accept, I think he said, our amendment 2 and our amendment 7, because the motion as it stands slightly reads like something that one might have seen in the 1980s, which implies that we can solve all of our economic woes by building more roads. I'm sure, from what Russell George has said in his responses to Huw Irranca-Davies, that isn't what he meant. But I do have to point out, Dirprwy Lywydd, that that is what the motion says. 

Nobody is denying for a moment that we will need to continue to invest in our road networks. I think the points that Russell George has made about the importance of that in rural communities, where it may very well be that some of those can never be effectively served by public transport networks—. And, on these benches, it's really important to us that those communities are supported and maintained, because, among other things, many of those communities are communities where Welsh is still a native language, where it's still spoken on a daily basis. And, so, we will need to continue to invest in our roads. Nobody on these benches is denying that. 

But it's not the whole solution. And I think that has been acknowledged. And we do know—and I commend the couple of really good academic studies on this, thinking particularly about what's been said today about the proposed M4 relief road—that the truth is that, over time, you build a road and it fills up. I will quote two of the studies. There's 'Demystifying Induced Travel Demand' written by Roger Gorham for the German Finance Ministry, and 'The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities' by Duranton and Turner for the 'American Economic Review'. And what they show is that you can't, long term, alleviate these problems by just covering up more of the countryside with concrete.

Now, that isn't to say for a moment that something doesn't need to be done about the issues around Newport. I think everybody in this Chamber—. All of us have driven that road or travelled on that road probably at some point, and we all know what happens at the Brynglas tunnels. But we don't believe for a moment that covering a really important site of special scientific interest with more concrete is going to solve that problem, long term. It is true to say that 43 per cent of the journeys made on that section of the M4 in question are journeys of under 20 miles, and many of those are journeys that, with proper public transport solutions, people would not choose to make by car. Ten per cent of the traffic on that stretch is what leads to the congestion. So, if we could take half of that 43 per cent of people off that road—and I say 'people' advisedly, because they are people who are in empty vehicles, just them and one other person a lot of the time—we could deal with that congestion problem. 

Now, the other issue, of course, with the M4 relief road is that it would take seven years to build. Even if we decided to do it, it would take seven years to build. And, in the meantime, Brynglas tunnel misery would continue to be a day-to-day reality. 

Will you take an intervention?

I'll very happily take an intervention. 

Thanks for giving way, Helen Mary. I hear what you're saying about taking more cars off the road, and, hopefully, that will help ease the congestion, and I hear also that you don't support the M4 black route across the Gwent levels. But, do you accept that there needs to be some kind of infrastructure improvement in terms of the road itself? That current road is a standard that's way out of date; it hasn't been fit for purpose for years. There needs to be some improvement, whatever that solution might be.

I absolutely accept what Nick Ramsay says about that—that part of the solution may very well be some additional road infrastructure, but it's not the whole story.

Now, I don't think it's fair to accuse the Welsh Government of having rushed into a decision about the M4 relief road. I think some of us thought we were quite possibly going to have retired by the time the decision was made. And the First Minister did take into account, and did, when he presented the decision, take into account that there were balanced factors. I think it's really important that the Welsh Government chose, in making that decision, to listen to our future generations commissioner. There is absolutely no point in the future generations and well-being Act, if, every time the person responsible for its delivery tells us something that we find inconvenient, we choose to ignore it. 

Will you take an intervention?

Briefly I will, but I'm just conscious I've got some other points I need to make. 

By the same token, is it not important that when we have an independent inspector's report and inquiry that the principle also applies there?

Well, I think that's a moot point, and it is a valid point, but it's about also the factors that those inspectorates are set up to look at. My own personal position—and I'm not speaking for my party—is that I think that some of those criteria need to be updated in the light of the future generations and well-being Act. So, I'm not disputing what the inspectorate found, but I may be partly disputing what the inspectorate was looking for. 

I want to turn—. So, we don't accept the points about the need to build—[Inaudible.] But I want to turn quickly to our amendments, and the question of where these decisions should be made. Some of us have been arguing the ins and outs of devolution for a very, very long time, and one thing that is completely clear to me is that any political organisation, any individual who says that they respect devolution at the other end of the M4 corridor should not be saying to Welsh Government, 'You can have this investment providing you spend it exactly as we tell you to do.' If that's the case, we may as well all pack up and go home. 

Will you take an intervention?

If the Presiding Officer will allow it. 

Briefly. I'm allowing for the intervention. 

It's just on that point about not wanting to instruct the Welsh Government how to spend money. I've heard you advocate on many occasions that we should direct local authorities how to spend theirs. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Surely, if there are nationally important projects, like the M4 relief road, and the UK Government wants to progress it—

Sorry, Darren, I'm going to have to cut across you now, because time is short. I think I've got your point. I simply disagree. I believe in the principle of subsidiarity—[Interruption.] Darren, I've taken your intervention, will you be kind enough to listen to my response? I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, which says that the decision should be made at the most local appropriate level, and there are times when it is appropriate for the Welsh Government to be directing local authorities and times when it is not. What is absolutely clear to me is that, in devolved matters, it is not appropriate for the UK Government to be directing and it is also not appropriate for the UK Government to be effectively blackmailing Welsh Government. 

Now, by all means, extra investment. I love the talk that we get from Boris Johnson about levelling up. I'd love to see some levelling up, as would many of the single-parent families in my constituency love to see a bit of levelling up. But the principle is that these are issues—these are devolved matters. Now, it's perfectly proper, both for the Conservative Party here and the Conservative Party in Westminster to disagree with what the Welsh Government decides to do. But it is not—it is not—for Ministers who were not elected by the people of this country to be directing the elected Government of this country as to how it spends its resources in devolved areas. 

I move our amendments, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

I have great pleasure in speaking in this debate this afternoon. South Wales East is the gateway to Wales. The purpose of the gateway is to allow the passage of goods and services inwards and outwards. It follows, therefore, that good transport links are vital in increasing a growing and thriving economy. The M4 is Wales's strategic gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom and to Europe. It is the main artery that pumps the lifeblood of the Welsh economy, but this artery, too often, is clogged and congested. The fact is that we are serviced by a sub-standard dual carriageway that fails to meet modern motorway standards. Congestion on the M4 hits our major towns and cities hard. Our economy alone—. Cardiff loses out on £134 million a year; Swansea, £62 million; and Newport, £44 million a year.

In the last few years, this stretch of road has been forced to close over 100 times. One hundred thousand vehicles travel on the M4 around Newport every day. This increases when major events, such as concerts, rugby, football or cricket take place in Cardiff, Newport or Swansea. Constrained by the oldest motorway tunnels in the United Kingdom, this stretch of road causes increased vehicle emissions, poor air quality and accidents.

An M4 relief road was first proposed way back in 1991. The case for a relief road for the M4 around Newport is even stronger than ever before. The National Assembly's own planning inspector spent more than a year considering the case for a new M4 route south of Newport. He gives the proposal his overwhelming backing. In his report, he details the economic, environmental and health benefits of the project. He said that the M4 project would provide—and this is his quote—

'a healthy rate of return for the investment of public funds.'  

For every pound invested, Wales would receive £1.50 in return, yet, his recommendation was rejected by the First Minister—a decision taken unilaterally. I hope he will answer one day what was the real reason to reject this great opportunity, which, day by day, is not only going to increase the cost of the motorway, but also there are other reasons, which I'm going to mention now. This rejection was met by dismay, anger and frustration by industry and business groups in Wales. Ninety businesses and organisations, including Admiral, Tata and SA Brain signed a joint statement calling on Welsh Government to deliver an M4 relief road. The CBI in Wales said, 

'This is a dark day for the Welsh economy...Congestion and road pollution around Newport can only increase. Economic growth will be stifled, confidence in the region will weaken and the cost of an eventual relief road will rise.'

The Freight Transport Association also said, 

'The M4 is a vital stretch of infrastructure with international economic importance, yet it is blighted by heavy congestion.'

It is the infrastructure and the opportunity to deliver this essential investment into south Wales that have been missed. This situation can only get worse, Presiding Officer. The Welsh Government accepts that there are severe operational problems on junctions around Newport, especially between junctions 23 and 28. The removal of the Severn bridge toll, although set to inject over £100 million of economic activities into Wales, has increased congestion enormously. Between 2011 and 2016, the traffic on the M4 rose by over 12 per cent. Projection by the Department for Transport shows that traffic alone on the M4 is set to increase by nearly 38 per cent over the next 30 years. Failure to act is simply not the option, Presiding Officer. The people of Wales have waited long enough for this problem to be addressed. While the Welsh Government dither and delay, the traffic increases and the situation worsens. We need action now. I call on the Welsh Government to deliver an M4 relief road as a matter of urgency. Thank you.

This would feel like groundhog day if it wasn't in the context of the cataclysmic storms and floods that we've had in the last few weeks, which makes it astonishing to me that we are debating whether or not to invest in more roads, when it's absolutely clear that the climate emergency requires us to find different solutions to the congestion problems that we have.

We know, from the Government's own evidence to the planning inquiry that the effect of investing £1.5 billion in 14 miles of road would be to increase the traffic on the M4 and simply to move it further along that road. This is not a good use of public money at all, and the First Minister took absolutely the right decision.

I find it astonishing that the Conservatives would argue that a solution to actually just move the congestion further down the road and to bring more people into Cardiff and Newport by car is a solution that we should be considering. It simply doesn't sit well with the Welsh Conservatives' call for a clean air Act, because the proposal in this motion would be to simply make the problem much worse.

Declaring a climate emergency has consequences, and I believe that the Conservatives need to start catching up with the need to do things differently rather than promoting more of the car-centric policies that have led us to the current deplorable and unsustainable despoiling of the world's resources. We simply can't go on like this. I would like to see the Welsh Conservatives concentrating on getting the UK Government to rectify the historic underfunding of our rail system, which is the reason why 43 per cent of the people using the M4 are simply commuting into work. It is really not a good use of a car to be driving it to work, parking it for eight hours and then driving out again. We must have a better public transport system. We absolutely can agree on that.

But we simply need to reflect on the fact, as the economy Minister said in an earlier question this afternoon, that Wales has 11 per cent of the stations and the signalling across England and Wales, but only 2 per cent of the funding. So, there's clearly plenty of money around when London-focused projects are being decided on. I remain to be convinced that HS2 will have any benefit for Wales, but I can see that it might, if it led to the electrification and extension of the hi-speed line to Holyhead. But—

Will you take an intervention? Thank you very much, Jenny. In terms of improving the rail infrastructure in Wales, what are your views about those areas that are outside the urban centres of south Wales and north Wales? Most of Wales doesn't have a rail system worth speaking of.

I agree with you. We constantly abolish roads and there are areas of Wales where we don't any longer have a railway line, and therefore we know that people who need to go to work from remote villages are going to need to use a car, at the very least to get to the bus transport that might take them to the town where they are going to work. So, I'm not saying that no roads should be maintained at all, but I'm just saying that the red rag to a bull for me is the continual focus in this motion on harking back to the decision that was made in June last year about not going ahead with hugely expensive and ineffective road improvement proposals. We really do need to upgrade our rail system, as well as improve the integrated transport system that we must have to have a modern economy, so that we quite quickly have the trains and the buses being co-ordinated, so that people can make whatever journey they need to make.

So, I just think we absolutely have to have the modal shift away from the car for things like commuting to work and school. I think we either need to argue that spending on the rail infrastructure needs to be devolved, or we need to do something about the raw deal that Wales is getting at the moment to get a better railway service for Wales. We aren't going to get anything, as far as I'm concerned, from spending £16 billion on HS2, and we aren't even going to get the electrification of the line to Swansea, unless there's something in the budget that we don't yet know about, nor even the upgrading of the four lines between Cardiff and Newport and beyond, two of which could be used as suburban rail services connecting up the population of Monmouthshire with Cardiff and Newport.

These are the sorts of investments that we urgently, urgently need, but I would agree with the need to really tackle the M4 congestion that we can all agree is unsustainable, and we need to inject some urgency into the liberation of the South East Wales Transport Commission to deliver sustainable and effective solutions to congestion in Newport and the wider region.

Can you wind up, please?

The commission has years of transport expertise amongst its members: how long do they need to come up with the solutions that they must surely have to hand? We don't need to be a transport expert to realise we're going to need to be ordering buses in the short term as an interim solution until we have the new metro, tram and train lines that will need time to be constructed.

Thank you to Jenny for giving me that intervention as well. I have to start off, though, by saying how disappointed I am to see yet another entire opposition motion deleted by Welsh Government and replaced by one of its own. Every week the Government has an entire day of its own to bring forward debates of its own choosing, but as this is becoming an established pattern of Welsh Government in responding to our debates in particular, Dirprwy Lywydd, I wonder if you or the Llywydd would now consider reviewing the Government's use of the 'delete all' amendment. It is for Government to answer this Parliament, not shout over it with amendments like this, or, indeed, refuse scrutiny because it doesn't like our tone.

And, Minister, if your priority is holding the UK Government to account as you seem to be doing in your amendment, please don't use our opposition time to do it: become an MP and use your own opposition's time to do it in Parliament. Can we have just a little bit more about Welsh Gov, and a little bit less about 'not us, guv'?

I think the climate change points that have been raised in this debate already are really useful additions to this motion. They are important and they felt particularly live to me yesterday as I sat, along with many working in this institution, in a traffic jam from the infamous junction 33 of the M4. It took me an hour to get to Culverhouse Cross, unable to turn my radiator on because of fumes. Maybe a particularly bad day yesterday, but in the nine years I've been here, my journey from Swansea in the morning takes at least half an hour longer than it used to and the reason for that is because we have roads that cannot cope with the increasingly frequent need for lane closures. And to take Huw Irranca-Davies's point and, indeed, Jenny's point—I can't cycle from Swansea to Cardiff to get here in the morning, Jenny. [Interruption.] So, why don't I catch the train? Well, if it were one of those new, extra-fast trains in which the UK Government has invested, and which would speed up those journeys far more than electrification would have done, then I really would consider it. But, in truth, it still takes me longer than in congested traffic to get here by train, and with Transport for Wales's performance at the moment, I really don't see that in and of itself as a sustainable alternative. [Interruption.] I don't come from the same place as you on this train, Huw.

Can I just point out one obvious thing, really, which is that buses, which are a big part of what the Government is looking at, use roads? This really isn't just about the car. So, unless you really are thinking of a monorail, Minister, then I think your dispatch of this motion is just another distraction from a very difficult truth, which we've tried—

Will you take a quick intervention?

Okay.

And also electric vehicles, because electric vehicles need roads as well as buses, of course.

You anticipate my point, Mr George. I was trying to get to the point that this is a difficult question. It's not just car versus train versus whatever. We have roads that are in a dangerous state of repair, which don't at the moment have sufficient capacity to deal with the congestion that we've created for a number of reasons, and which are not designed to prioritise public transport. We should be looking with new roads, when they are brand-new, to design in that attractive active travel alternative that connects communities economically as well as socially, but that can't be true for every road, including the one that I use in the morning.

Green transport—well, trams share road space with motor vehicles, and whether it's green public transport or whether it's hydrogen taxis—let's have those as well—they will still use roads. And that's what this debate is about—raising a serious question about the present and future purpose of roads, as posited in the first two points of our motion. So, it's not a return to the 1980s.

Major roads are nearly always controversial, despite being the subject of compromise so often. Compromise may be driven by often unrealised cost savings, and it seems to me that neither of our Governments has the best of stories to tell on the cost of strategic infrastructure. But the difference between the work on the A465 and HS2 is that the former has been a point of reference in my life since, pretty much, I left university. Only the Sagrada Familia is taking longer to finish, and actually poor delivery on this strategic infrastructure is just as much against the principles of the future generations Act as plastering the country in concrete.

Compromise can be a lost opportunity as well. There are reasons why the distributor road south of Port Talbot is not a replacement for the elevated section of the M4—that would never have been built today—but reduced speed limits on this stretch just move congestion up the road to Llandarcy. The biggest increases in traffic in my region are at the five junctions west of Port Talbot. Experiments with junction 41—these are no adverts to those that we seek to attract into the city region, not least Milford Haven, nor those we seek to persuade to maintain a south Wales land bridge for trade between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Just to finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, whatever this costs the economy, it's making a mockery of all our local development plans as well. The biggest rise in volume of traffic in my region is at junction 47 near Penllergaer, jumping 78 per cent in the last 17 years, and guess where the LDP is planning to build the majority of its housing estates?

Minister, in your response I really hope you will respond to this debate for what it is—a sincere appeal for some strategic thinking on our infrastructure, badly needed to level Wales up.

I want to confine my comments to the two major roads in Wales, and the financing of any enhancements that might take place, whatever sort of enhancements are decided. Those two major roads are the A55 in the north and the M4 in the south. Both enjoy the status of E-designated motorways by the European Union—in the case of the A55, E22, and the M4, E30. This means they are part of the pan-European road network designed to connect the nations of the European Union.

As we all know, we in the UK no longer belong to that union, but the next-door neighbour, Ireland, does. These two major motorways are vital to Ireland's connectivity not just to parts of the UK, but also to the countries of the European Union. It is therefore entirely acceptable, if not desirable, for it to contribute to the enhancement of these motorways. It is, of course, very much to the advantage of the Irish haulage business if road bottlenecks—such as the Menai bridge and the tunnel at Brynglas—were removed. It is also entirely feasible that they could seek funding from the European Union to enable such enhancements, given the EU is committed to making all its nation states equally accessible. So, I repeat my call to the previous First Minister that the present Minister initiates talks with his Irish counterpart to discuss this possibility.

I only rise to make a very brief contribution in this debate, which I've really enjoyed, actually. What it's thrown up for me, as I anticipated, is this real conflicted thinking that we struggle with—not just as a Senedd here, but also in the wider public—between our desire to be sitting in a warm car, on our own, with the radio turned on, with the heater on, driving wherever we want to, and actually the recognition that the poorest people in society don't actually rely on cars at all. What they rely on is good public transport. They don't have the option of having a car, even to get to a minimum-paid job. So, that's where the sustainable transport pyramid really plays very, very effectively. If we accept in this Senedd, as we did—[Interruption.] I will in a moment—just in a moment. If we accept, as we did when we brought through not only the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 but, actually, the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which envisaged Wales becoming a nation where it would be natural to walk and cycle first—and that's the top of the pyramid; it's the walking and cycling—and then you work your way down, and you work your way through public transport and mass-transport systems, through shared cars and shared taxis, through things like community transport initiatives and so on. And then you get down to the unmistakable question that there will be some people who cannot do anything but get into their own car, at this moment in time with the technology we have. And we have to accept that. But surely we have to work through the others first, and what this debate sometimes misses is that wider thinking about how we shift things up that pyramid to make it easier, much more attractive, much more affordable, so that Suzy as well, not just me, as I can nip down to the train station—[Interruption.] Just to mention to you, by the way, what I found, since travelling more and more by train, is that despite the issues that we've recently had through December with the 06:44 train in the morning—despite that, when I was travelling by car, I was stuck much more in delays, in traffic, in accidents, time after time after time, than the odd occasional train that gets cancelled. But I will give way.

I'm very grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies for taking the intervention. I entirely take your point about poverty, but I know people in the region that I represent where the mother of the family is eating bread and tea at the end of the week because she has to put petrol in her car to get to her minimum-wage job in a rural area. So, let's not just assume that people who are economically disadvantaged only live in those communities where they of course need access to good public transport, because some of those families, if they're to stay in their community, will never be able to have the bus and rail network, and they will need access to affordable private travel.

I absolutely agree, and that's absolutely the case at it currently is, but I don't think either we should give up on having good, affordable, accessible, reliable, frequent public transportation in rural areas as well. It's a measure of how far we've got to shift this paradigm to say we should be tipping the investment into that.

One of the greatest fears of god that would go through Westminster parliamentarians when we used to have the now infamous petrol-price escalator—which was designed exactly to have a discouraging effect towards filling up your tank regularly and so on—was that we had mass opposition to that, not least led by Top Gear and other presenters, who would march on Parliament and say, 'This is a disgrace.' You're absolutely right, in terms of where we currently are, there's got to be an acceptance that for some people, it's unavoidable.

But, actually, for some of the discussion we've had today about some of the main transport networks, particularly on the south Wales corridor, all the way from Newport, all the way from Bristol, frankly, all the way to Pont Abraham services—that has now become, in effect, a de facto local transport network as well, with people nipping in and nipping off there. Now, surely, we have to do, in a sense, what Cardiff have—I'm glad Cardiff have launched the debate around, not only congestion charging, which has caused a lot of angst and debate and so on, but I'm glad they've launched that debate, I have to say. But it's also around car sharing, because my brother-in-law, who has worked in Cardiff for 30 years, shares a car with four other people, and they pick up along the way and they travel to Lloyd's Bank, and they've done that for year upon year upon year. If they can do it, why can't others? I know of a care home in my constituency that also has catering workers with it who have done exactly the same. This is in my constituency. And they travel along the M4 and they've decided they can't put up with what's going on there, so they've come together—partly for cost, to keep the costs down, because they're all in lowest, minimum-wage jobs, but they've come together to carpool. Now it's those options that are missing from this debate sometimes.

However, we do have to accept that there needs to be some investment in roads. There are some that are not fit for purpose; there are some that need upgrading and maintenance. I'm delighted that Welsh Government has given—I think it is— around £2 million to Bridgend County Borough Council. I hope that they will use that to fix places like Tonna Road. It needs major resurfacing, not just potholes done. So, that sort of money will continue to be needed. We must accept that some people will have no option but to have access to private transport, but let's not pretend we need to do anything other than turn the whole paradigm on its head and start investing in mass transport and then the car as an add-on, not the other way around, as we've done for 50 years.  

I just want to take this opportunity to reflect on the Welsh Government's transport commitments in its programme for government, which commits the Government to improving the A40 in west Wales.

Now, the Minister will know that one of my favourite subjects is talking about the A40 in Pembrokeshire, and he and others will not be surprised that I will continue to call on the Welsh Government to dual the A40 in my constituency, which, in my view, would have a hugely beneficial impact on local communities and it would transform the local economy. Now, as Members will be aware, the ports in my constituency are an important gateway for international trade, and it's more important than ever that the Welsh Government invests in the local transport network to ensure that these ports remain competitive in the future. Indeed, both Fishguard and Milford Haven ports have called for this infrastructure development for some years now, and so perhaps in responding to this debate the Minister could confirm that, in principle, the Welsh Government is in favour of dualling this stretch of road in the long term. And I'm sure the Minister will agree that dualling the road has never been a political issue and, if you ask members of all parties, I'm sure it's one of the few infrastructure issues that politicians of all colours can actually agree on, and so it's high time that this project is now taken seriously.

Whilst the Welsh Government continues to push ahead with transport schemes in other parts of Wales, such as the Heads of the Valleys road, which is extremely important, it's also crucial that the infrastructure needs of west Wales are also met. We've heard commitments in the past about feasibility studies and promises of improvements throughout this Assembly, but, in reality, little is being done to transform this road and open west Wales to the rest of the country. Indeed, it was disappointing to read in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's report on the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports that Wales had previously not taken full advantage of the funding associated with the trans-European transport network. During that particular inquiry, Ian Davies of Stena Line ports told the committee that there had only been minor funding but nothing of any real significance over the last 15 years. Well, that's simply not acceptable and it's sad to hear that opportunities have been missed in the past to access vital funding pots and, as a result, we're still no further forward. Therefore, I really do hope that the Minister will relook at this project and give communities in west Wales a meaningful commitment to dualling this road in the future. 

Of course, it's not all about larger scale projects; there are significant challenges facing the local road network across Wales and that, too, has an impact on local communities. I know from my own engagement with local people in Lower Town, Fishguard, for example, just how detrimental poor road infrastructure can be. In this particular case, oversized vehicles travelling through Lower Town have literally become stuck between properties, causing damage and also causing danger to pedestrians. The Minister will be aware that I've called for a footbridge to be installed to better support pedestrians on the A487 in Lower Town, Fishguard, but sadly those calls continue to fall on deaf ears. Now, I accept that an alert system is currently being developed to warn larger vehicles travelling on this stretch of road, and I cautiously welcome that, but it's absolutely crucial that this system is both practical and palatable for the local community. That's why I've extended an invitation to the Minister to visit the area for himself to see the problems first hand and so perhaps in responding to this debate he will at least be able to confirm whether or not he'll be taking me up on that invitation. 

Now, the availability of good infrastructure clearly has a direct influence on the sustainability of businesses across Wales, and that's why it's more important than ever that the Welsh Government rural-proofs its transport policies and ensures investment reaches all parts of the country. It must be remembered that the volume of traffic on the roads in increasing, and therefore it's essential that we ensure that the state of those roads is of a decent standard and safe for road users. In 2018, motor vehicles in Wales completed 29.4 billion vehicle kilometres. This is 4.63 billion vehicle kilometres more than in 2000. However, as I understand it, whilst the volume of cars and taxis has increased by 2.74 billion vehicle kilometres since 2000, the volume of buses and coaches has decreased by 0.8 billion in the same time.

I think it's important, as has already been said, to recognise that in rural areas like Pembrokeshire buses provide a valuable lifeline to so many people in accessing work and community facilities, and even in combating loneliness and isolation. Therefore, at the very least, I think the Welsh Government has an obligation to those people to ensure that our public road network is sufficient and capable of comfortably transporting people from one place to another, and perhaps the Welsh Government's forthcoming buses Bill will not only look at the type of services available, but how those services will actually be delivered on our road infrastructure.

Therefore, in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, Pembrokeshire will soon be home to thousands of visitors, and yet to fully capitalise on what Pembrokeshire has to offer there needs to be a strong transport network in place. Therefore, I urge Members to support our motion.   

Can I now call the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates? 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to respond to this debate this afternoon. I see no reason why Members on any side of this Chamber could possibly fail to support the declaration of a climate emergency, fail to support or acknowledge the Welsh Government's £5 billion rail service, fail to regret £1 billion of underfunding in transport infrastructure by the UK Government in Wales in the last five years—why no Member in this Chamber could regret a decade of austerity or support our call for funding for a comprehensive package of borderland road and transport projects, Dirprwy Lywydd. Nor can I see any reason why any Member would refuse to call on the UK Government to invest £1 billion in north Wales rail infrastructure or to note the decision—just note the decision—of the First Minister, or, of course, to welcome the Welsh Government's £1 billion spend on transport in north Wales. I can only take it that any Member that refuses to support our amendment does not support the £1 billion package of improvements in north Wales or our call for £1 billion to make good on the great train robbery by—[Interruption.] I'll gladly give way. 

I was looking at our motion, and I wonder why there's no reason to regret that you can't agree that you recognise the importance of roads as vital economic arteries which promote prosperity, or acknowledge the adverse economic and environmental impact of poor road connectivity. I could go on, but you don't recognise any of that. If you do recognise that, why are you deleting this? 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I simply cannot accept that we should be working with the UK Government to deliver an M4 relief road. That decision has been made. And, if I may start with the M4, first of all, the First Minister has commented repeatedly in this Chamber and has provided his reasoning for not proceeding with the M4 corridor around Newport project. And I can assure all Members that we recognise congestion on the M4 is a challenge that has to be addressed. Do not think it is simply not an option, not on this side of the border nor on the English side of the border.

Here, we are grateful for the work that Lord Burns has already completed with the South East Wales Transport Commission in their December report. That report is just the beginning of the commission's work, and I look forward to receiving further updates this year. We've also been clear in stressing that this particular project was absolutely unique in terms of the scale and in terms of the impact on the site of special scientific interest, and that therefore it had to be considered in its own right. 

Now, in recent years we have completed several high-profile road projects, including Newtown bypass, which is, I think, a fantastic example of how Welsh Government investment and commitment is delivering for the people of Wales. And it was delivered, as I said earlier, ahead of schedule and completed, I think, to the very highest standard that the scheme could possibly achieve. It's providing a real step change in how people travel in the area, as well as to and beyond Newtown. Now, in contrast, by July of 2018, the UK Government's road schemes were running approximately £2.8 billion over budget and 85 of the 112 road schemes were delayed, and let's not forget either the tragedies caused by the UK Government's disastrous so-called smart motorways project, recently exposed by Panorama as 'killer' roads. There are no such schemes here in Wales.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as noted in our amendment, the Welsh Government is providing £1 billion of improvements to road and transport infrastructure in north Wales, including major upgrades of the A55 and the A483, active travel schemes and the north Wales metro, and this is in spite of the fact that the UK Government is demanding £200 million of money back from us with just six weeks of the financial year to go.

Now, we fully recognise the importance of cross-border connectivity, and, over recent months, officials have been working closely with officials from the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales to identify possible schemes that we can take forward, and I am grateful for that collaboration. There are two major projects identified by officials that could be prioritised for development and construction over the coming years. There's the A483 Pant to Llanymynech road scheme and the A5/A483 Shrewsbury to Wrexham scheme. Maximising the economic benefits such improvements can bring to Wales will require both Governments to commit resources, and the Welsh Government is prepared to allocate funding if the UK Government can do the same through the road investment strategy.

Now, our national transport finance plan highlights our commitments to improving the motorway and trunk road network in Wales, despite the decade of austerity that we have endured. The Welsh Government, not being funded to do so, has also invested in our rail infrastructure, choosing to connect communities through reopening lines and new stations, prioritising increasing capacity to provide valuable and popular services, and closing, of course, level crossings to improve safety and journey times. My oral statement yesterday informed Members of the need for ownership and funding of rail infrastructure to be in the hands of Welsh people. We for too long have been low on the list of Westminster's priorities for enhancing the rail network. That could end with the devolution of responsibilities and funding.

By the end of the next financial year, we will also have delivered a significant proportion of the south Wales metro transformation, reaffirming our commitment to carbon reduction. Now, transport decarbonisation will be a key theme in the Welsh Government's new transport strategy, which is to be published this year, and, in the next financial year, we have allocated an extra £74 million for decarbonisation transport measures.

Now, as I said in my answer to questions earlier today, £2 million is being invested to create rapid-charging points throughout Wales to enable longer distance travel and encourage the transition away from petrol and diesel cars, and this supports our ambitions to have a zero tailpipe emission bus and taxi fleet by 2028.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I must just take this opportunity to assure both Suzy Davies and Paul Davies that, in this Government's determination to level up Wales, we are taking forward projects across the country, including the alleviation of congestion at junction 47 on the M4 and two major projects on the A40. Clearly, though, if the Prime Minister decided to abandon his £15 billion idea of building a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, he could not only make up the £1 billion great train robbery, he could also have plenty of money left to invest in the dualling of the A40.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this Government's ambition to see a more prosperous, greener, and equal Wales through better transport connectivity is one I hope all will aspire to in this Chamber, and the UK Government can and should provide Wales with a fairer share of funding to make it happen.

Thank you. Can I call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a pleasure to round up this debate today, on, let's face it, what is a very important subject for this Chamber, for the people of Wales. It used to be said about the late Lord Wyn Roberts that he built more roads in Wales than the Romans, and he did build a fair few, it's true, including, of course, the A470, a major infrastructure project, which you can't imagine Wales without now.

Roads are not the answer to our transport problems—to all our transport problems—but they are a vitally important part of the overall transport infrastructure of this country. And of course, even if you are a keen advocate of public transport—buses are, of course, key to the transport needs of this country—buses need roads to run on, buses require tarmac. So, even the keenest advocates of public transport have to accept that roads have a vital part to play. Of course, it's not just buses, there are trams too, or even the trolleybuses, as we used to have. I can see Dave Rowlands smiling at the mention of the trolleybuses many years ago.

So, it's not just about cars, but cars continue, as Russ George said earlier, to be a major form of transport; and in the future, they will still be, even if they are electric. Yes, we are moving away from fossil fuels, but that doesn't necessarily mean moving totally away from cars, from a personal form of transport, particularly in rural areas where, of course, bus services aren't great. For all of the comments that are made by the Minister and the Welsh Government about attempts to improve the transport in rural areas, buses are still not providing the total coverage we'd like to see.

Now, turning to some of the contributions made during this debate, and as Russ George said in opening, our road network is vital. You also mentioned the M4 relief road, Russ, and the need for a solution to the congestion problems around Cardiff. As our motion says, we look to solve those. A great deal of money was spent on the public inquiry, but with no solution to the congestion in sight. It is hard to see—. As I said in response to Helen Mary Jones's comment earlier, whilst I understand some of the objections to tarmacking countryside and areas of special scientific interest, it's not possible to deal with problems such as those around Newport without some kind of infrastructure solution, and our motion addresses that.

Perhaps we could have an update from the Minister on the commission that has been set up to look at the issues around Newport. I think that that would be timely. We know it's been working for some time now, and there were different stages to that commission.

Helen Mary Jones, you did suggest, which amused me, that our motion is trying to turn the clock back to the 1980s. Well, that's certainly not the intention, Helen Mary, we are just saying that you can't solve all of these problems, certainly in the medium term, by trying to shift all of the traffic on to public transport. There has to be some kind of balance. Russ.

I was just going to say, I think it was said a couple of times during the debate, but, our motion doesn't say that we want to build more roads, it's talking about updating the current infrastructure that's there. I think that's an important distinction that needs to be clarified on our motion.

Whenever someone from your own side intervenes, it's always good to agree with them. So, I feel, Russ, you've made an important point. Yes, it's too often today some Members have said, 'Why are you talking about roads?' Well, it's necessary to talk about roads; they are a vital part of the overall mix, and that's why we brought that motion here today.

As Mohammad Asghar said, the M4 is a vital artery around Newport; it's an outdated artery that needs to be improved. And as Suzy Davies said, we seem to be waiting a long time for all of these things; I can't remember exactly the anecdote you used, Suzy, but it was a very memorable one. Dave Rowlands, you once again called for Ireland, I think it was, the Republic of Ireland, to have some contribution to improving our road network in Wales; it's quite ironic, actually, given that we have left Europe, that we'd be looking to another country to do that. We know that there's funding on offer from the UK Government, and that funding is all important, and that funding needs to be employed in improving our road network. I've forgotten the number of the European route that you were talking about, but I think the M4 is part of that European route, trans-European route, as is the A40 in Pembrokeshire, which was mentioned by Paul Davies—a well worn plea for the dualling of the A40. Many years ago, I was part of the SO25 committee that looked at the Robeston Wathen bypass and whether that should be dualled or should be three lanes; in the end, it was three lanes.

But in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, these are very important issues I'm glad we're discussing in this Chamber today. Yes, we need improvements in public transport. Yes, we need the metro to be fulfilled. Yes, we need electrification, which is happening along the Great Western line. All these things are fine. But at the end of the day, we will also need investment in our road network, because it's only because of roads like the A470 today that Wales hasn't come to a standstill before now. So, let's make sure that, moving forward, all aspects of transport infrastructure are properly funded by the Welsh Government.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we'll vote on this item in voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.