The next item, therefore, will be the statement by the Deputy Minister for Climate Change on the roads review and national transport delivery plan. I call on the Deputy Minister to make his statement—Lee Waters.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Today we are publishing the final report of the independent roads review panel. This is a landmark report of international significance, and I'd like to thank Dr Lynn Sloman and her fellow panelists. Their report is detailed, authoritative and compelling, and the Welsh Government accepts its core principles and the new approach it sets out.

When we published the Wales transport strategy two years ago, we committed to start upon a llwybr newydd, a new path. The publication of this roads review, along with the national transport delivery plan and our new roads policy statement, represents a major step forward on that journey. Let me be very clear at the outset: we will still invest in roads. In fact, we are building new roads as I speak, but we are raising the bar for where new roads are the right response to transport problems. We're also investing in real alternatives. Today's national transport delivery plan sets out a five-year programme of investment in rail, bus, walking and cycling projects. Modern successful economies have modern successful public transport systems. Ours has withered on the vine of privatisation, and that must change. Of course, doing that in an age of austerity is very challenging. Not only are we not getting our share of High Speed rail investment, but the UK Government is pushing many bus services over a cliff edge, as well as slashing our capital investment budgets. Even if we'd wanted to keep progressing all the road schemes in the pipeline, we just do not have the money to do so. Our capital budget will be 8 per cent lower next year in real terms as a result of the last UK Government budget. So, when the Conservatives criticise us, they should remember the financial reality of their making: the roads programme is simply unaffordable. With fewer resources it becomes even more important to prioritise, and the roads review helps us to do that.

Road schemes take many years from the first plan on the page to the first shovel in the ground. This means most of the schemes currently in development in Wales were conceived before we declared a climate and nature emergency and before we set stretching policy commitments in the Wales transport strategy, the programme for government and Net Zero Wales. The roads review looked at each of the 55 schemes in development and tested them against our current policies. The panel sets out their detailed view on each one in their report, along with a set of purposes and conditions for future road investment. 

The report says that we need to do more to look after the roads we already have, and pay more attention to supporting the movement of freight. I’ve today published a written statement on a review of our approach to road maintenance, and we will also be publishing a freight plan later in the year. We need roads, but we need to remember that roads are not just for cars. The panel said we need to give greater priority to buses and active travel networks in road schemes.

The report also says that, where there are road safety concerns, we should be looking first to reduce speeds in collision blackspots. And when we do take forward a new scheme, we should opt for the one with the lowest environmental impact. About a third of the carbon generated from a road scheme comes from the materials used in constructing, lighting and maintaining it over its whole lifecycle: steel, concrete, asphalt, water—everything that goes into a road scheme has a significant carbon footprint of its own. And we need to reduce this embodied carbon, through innovation, but also through making the most of what we have.

The central argument presented by the roads review panel is that we can’t build our way out of congestion. When looked at in isolation, there is often a case to be made for a by-pass or an extra lane, but, cumulatively, it exacerbates the problem. In the short term, creating new road space often speeds up a car journey and makes it more attractive than a public transport alternative. This encourages more people to drive. But over time, this generates more journeys, with people travelling longer distances. This then creates extra traffic and congestion. It also results in retail and residential developments popping up close to the new junctions, as we have seen right across Wales. And these are places, usually, that have few public transport or active travel options, and so people have little choice but to get to them by car, and this produces even more traffic.

As people drive more, fewer people use public transport, which results in fewer services being viable, leaving people with even fewer alternatives. This disproportionately disadvantages women and people on low incomes, who we know from the data are the most dependent on public transport. For those who feel forced into running a car to access work, the costs can be punitive. Studies have shown that the poorest households can spend up to a quarter of their income on transport costs, putting them into transport poverty. Not only has our approach been running counter to our climate policy and our planning policy, but it has also been running counter to our social justice policies, and that has to change.

Llywydd, our approach for the last 70 years is not working. As the review points out, the by-pass that was demanded to relieve congestion often ends up leading to extra traffic, which, in time, brings further demands for extra lanes, wider junctions and more roads. Round and round we go, emitting more and more carbon as we do it. This is an internationally recognised trend that academics call 'induced demand'. And the panel report says very clearly that schemes that create extra road capacity for cars should not be supported. Instead, they recommend greater attention should be given to schemes that focus on demand management, improvements in public transport, and active travel. This, they say, will help to reduce non-essential traffic and make capacity available for essential road users, including freight operators.

We have accepted the report’s case for change. We will not get to net zero unless we stop doing the same thing over and over. Where we can create an easier alternative to driving, let's do so. It's an approach that will bring multiple benefits, and it will help those who have no alternative to the car to go about their business. That’s the best way to address congestion and costs for businesses in the short term. And in the longer term, economists have warned us that the knock-on consequences of rising temperatures will trigger annual falling rates of gross domestic product of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent, bringing profound harm to jobs and investment. So, there is no long-term conflict between the environment and the economy. Our policies will help both. We need both.

The national transport delivery plan that we are publishing today lists the road schemes that we will continue to develop over the next five years. Where the roads review panel has recommended a scheme should not proceed, we will not be progressing with that scheme as planned. But where there is an agreed transport problem, we will work with the scheme sponsors to identify a solution that meets the new tests for investment.

Our new roads policy makes clear that we will continue to invest in new and existing roads, but, to qualify for future funding, the focus should be on minimising carbon emissions, not increasing capacity, not increasing emissions through higher vehicle speeds, and not adversely affecting ecologically valuable sites.

For those roads that are designed to link to sites of economic development, the report has made a series of suggestions, and I have asked Councillor Anthony Hunt, the leader of Torfaen council, and Councillor Llinos Medi, the leader of Ynys Môn council, to work with us to find a practical way of allowing for growth sites to go forward that is consistent with our planning and transport policies.

Llywydd, let’s remember what Julie James and I said when we took up our posts: in this decade, Wales has to make greater cuts in emissions than we have in the whole of the last three decades combined. Greater cuts in the next 10 years than we've managed in the whole of the last 30. That’s what the science says we need to do. We know what’s coming. Our task is to futureproof Wales.

I would urge Members to read the roads review panel report in full. None of this is easy, but neither is the alternative. The UN general secretary has warned that, unless we act decisively now, we face a climate catastrophe. I say this with all sincerity to all Members: if we are to declare a climate and nature emergency, legislate to protect the well-being of future generations, which we've done, and put into law a requirement to reach net zero by 2050, we simply have to be prepared to follow through, and I'm very grateful to the roads review panel for helping us set out a way to do that. Diolch.

Deputy Minister, you had a real chance here to get Wales moving again by giving communities across Wales infrastructure they not only need, but really deserve. Residents in all four corners of Wales have been on tenterhooks for nearly two years while this backwards road building ban has been in place. But the wait is finally over, just under 60 schemes went under the microscope as part of your review, and now we find out just a handful have been spared the axe and will be going ahead as planned. Deputy Minister, given people in those areas have been waiting for action for so long, when exactly do you expect the diggers to hit the ground?

Whilst news of some of the projects being waved through will be very much welcomed by commuters, visitors and residents in those areas, the misery, mayhem and uncertainty for everyone else in limbo is still unfortunately going to carry on. Deputy Minister, what will you say to all those people who are going to carry on suffering as a direct result of your decision? What do you say, Deputy Minister, to all those businesses that are struggling to operate and will now continue to struggle because of this decision?

I know that you get great pleasure from blaming the UK Government for all of your shortcomings. However, I feel like I should remind you that your Government did return £155 million back to Westminster because you simply didn't spend it in Wales for the people of Wales. And I don't need to remind you that many areas of transport that we talk about are, in fact, devolved. To you, Deputy Minister, roads might be these awful stretches of concrete, but to us, businesses, commuters and residents, they are a necessity. We need adequate roads to run a top-quality public transport network, to help businesses thrive, and to get the economy firing on all cylinders—just some of the few reasons why I speak so passionately about this. 

I understand that some projects might eventually be given the green light if some tweaks and amendments are made and they pass your rings-of-fire tests that are now in place. So, given that £24 million had already been spent on road projects in research and development before this freeze took place, who is now going to foot the bill for the redesign work? The director of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association has contacted us saying that he wants some urgent clarity on the matter of what's going to be happening moving forward.

I also have some concerns about two councillors, Labour's Anthony Hunt and Plaid's Llinos Medi, tasked with reviewing projects that are economic development sites going forward. Couldn't a panel of independent people have been assembled to explore this, instead of two politically aligned councillors?

One of the review's recommendations was to provide better parking facilities and rest areas for heavy goods vehicle drivers, something I welcome and have been long calling for, alongside the Road Haulage Association, to achieve. Can I have a firm confirmation from you, Deputy Minister, that this will indeed happen, and when exactly you expect these improvements to be made? When you announced a road building freeze, Deputy Minister, and I quote you now, you said,

'we need a shift away from spending money on projects that encourage more people to drive, and invest in real alternatives that give people a meaningful choice.'

Now, if that is the case, Deputy Minister, why has your Government slashed spending within active travel for 2023-24 from the mooted £223 million to £184 million? What exactly are these so-called 'real alternatives' that you are supposedly investing in, Deputy Minister? You claim that you want to stop spending money on things that encourage people to drive. Fair enough. So, I'm curious to know, Deputy Minister, why your Government has not spent a single penny on advertising active travel since 2018. Strangely, your Government also did not spend anything on advertising public transport during 2021-22.

And, now, let's turn to the transport plan. You said that it would prioritise climate change, social justice and equality. Correct? Yet, having read the full version of 162 pages and the short version of 16 pages, it did not acknowledge anywhere transport poverty or make any note of how your work with transport operators to reduce fares is going forward. So, what are you and your colleagues doing to ease the financial burden on those actually using public transport, Deputy Minister? Across the border in England, the Conservative UK Government has introduced a £2 cap on bus fares. Deputy Minister, why haven't we got a similar scheme here in Wales for our commuters? And will you seriously look into this, because I have no doubt that it will encourage more people to use buses?

Another one of the plan's aims is that by 2025 all users of electric cars and vans in Wales are confident that they can access electric vehicle charging infrastructure when and where they need it. How is this going to work, Deputy Minister, Because it looks to me that you're royally failing with just 39 public charging devices per 100,000 of the population in Wales? It's just not sufficient. With Wales having the lowest level of rapid or quicker charging devices, are you confident that you're going to hit this target?

One of the plan's priorities is to get more people working from home. I must admit that did make me laugh, because to me it felt like you are basically saying that the transport network in Wales is so poor that you'd rather keep people at home, instead of providing real solutions. Deputy Minister, it's clear to me that all of this today, mixed with the blanket 20 mph speed limit roll-out and the rumoured congestion charge going forward, only further highlight Labour's anti-car, anti-growth, anti-job agenda. For me, it's seems like Labour's transport strategy is in complete chaos.

Deputy Minister, you've previously admitted that your Government doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to the economy. It's now time for you to hold up your hands and, in front of us all, admit that you clearly don't know what you're doing when it comes to transport as well. 

Well, I do know how to read a budget, and I'm afraid she's got the complete wrong end of the stick while reading ours. There was no cut from £220 million to £180 million on active travel. I don't know where she gets these figures from; that's a complete fantasy, and, as for handing £155 million back to the Treasury, I think that's an act of fantasy too.

I appreciate we might have wrong-footed Natasha Asghar with today's announcement, because I've been reading increasingly alarmist pieces from her on how I was going to bring about the end of humanity as we know it, and clearly we've come up with a sensible set of recommendations based on independent experts, agreed as a consensus for them, agreed as a consensus within Government, greeted warmly by local government, that makes us meet the challenges ahead of us.

As I say to her and her colleagues, with the greatest of respect, if we sign up to targets of net zero by 2050, we have to be prepared to do things differently. Let me quote this to them:

'the longer we fail to act, the worse it gets and the higher the price when we are eventually forced, by catastrophe, to act.... It’s one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock, and we need to act now. If we don’t get serious about climate change today, it will be too late for our children to do so tomorrow.'

That was said by a Conservative Prime Minister less than a year ago. So, the words on net zero are there, certainly amongst her party in London—less so here. But it's no good saying words unless you're prepared to do things differently.

All I've heard from her is a set of slogans that she wants to create wedge issues to wind people up over. I haven't heard a single constructive suggestion of how, if we accept we need to achieve net zero, we do it in transport. That's what we've done here; we've taken that exam question: 'How do we achieve net zero in our roads programme? Let's go away and examine that.' That's what's happened, and that's what we've come up with: a credible, practical, pragmatic way forward that keeps building roads, but builds roads that don't keep adding to our problems. And that's the difference, I'm afraid, between opposition and Government: we can't speak in slogans; we have to look at practical projects to take forward, and that's what we've done. I'm sure, when she has a chance to read the report in more detail, she will realise that we have set out a pragmatic way forward. And if she has other suggestions of ways we can bring emissions down, I'm all ears.

Diolch, Weinidog. I would have hoped that everyone in the Chamber would agree that addressing climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The science is clear: if we don't take bold action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will have no future. So, the roads review and all of the difficult decisions it entails has to be seen in that context. The principle is one I welcome—how can we not? But, the policy is far from perfect, because we need to find ways of helping people to change their lives, but many of the areas where road building projects have been paused are already underserved by public transport links. I have concerns, Minister, about the effect that this will have on the lives of people who live in those areas. Many people in rural Wales rely on private vehicles to get around, just like many people in Valleys communities rely on buses. We, of course, have to change that over-reliance on cars, but it won't happen overnight. It's the transition period that I'm most concerned about, because many people will rely on roads to get to work, to access essential services, to visit friends and family, and a pause on new roads without, perhaps, more certain investment in public transport could mean longer journeys, increased travel costs and reduce access to important services. So, it's the social justice element of this that I'm concerned about. That's why I believe it's important that the Welsh Government needs to be clear about what other steps it will take to respond to air pollution that absolutely are essential.

I know that reducing emissions from transport is a critical part of the solution. It can't be the only solution, of course. We need to consider the needs of all communities, to work together to find ways to reduce emissions and improve air quality. So, in terms of the other steps that the Welsh Government needs to take to respond to air pollution, surely key to all of this needs to be investment in alternative modes of transport, like public transport. This should surely be the most important time to promote and provide certainty about funding for public transport. I would associate myself with the comments already made in the Siambr earlier today about the certainty over bus service funding.

Now, I know that active travel, Minister, is something that's close to your heart, and I welcome the point that you made about giving priority with roads to active travel routes to buses. I would welcome more information on that, because investing in these alternative modes would reduce the number of cars on the road and help to reduce emissions. Surely we should also be investing in electric vehicle infrastructure so that people can switch to cleaner, more sustainable forms of transport. There is chronic underfunding in that area. It's welcome to say that we want better bus services and modal shift. It's not just welcome, it's vital. But, with all of these things, they will rely on roads still. Again, it's the transition that I'm concerned about.

Secondly, would you agree, Minister, that we need to promote low-emission zones in our cities to help reduce emissions in our most populated areas and improve air quality for those who live and work there? I think there's something particularly to be said about improved monitoring of air pollution, particularly outside schools. Again, these interventions need to be undertaken in concert, of course, with the plan.

Finally, do you agree that we need to educate and empower people with the knowledge about the importance of reducing emissions and the impact that air pollution has on our health? Because if we work together to encourage people to make sustainable choices like using public transport—where it's available, of course, and making it more available—cycling, reducing energy use, that will help change, perhaps, the perception so that people don't feel that this is something that is being done to them, that it's a decision that they're part of as well, and getting that buy-in through the education system.

So, the roads review policy, I think, is a step in the right direction. It's a direction we have to go in, or we'll be swallowed by smog, but people have to be taken in that direction. There needs to be a route through for them to get there. The policy isn't perfect, but we need a comprehensive, integrated approach to addressing air pollution, to reducing emissions. It should include all of these different pieces coming together alongside sustainable agriculture and education.

I think the obvious point here as well is about legislation. We need the clean air Bill soon. An update on that would be very welcome as well. Together, we have to create a cleaner, greener, more sustainable future for Wales. I think that we want here—. We have to be en route to the same destination, but we need to make it easier and not harder for people to get there. So, let's work together to make that a reality.

Thank you for your broad welcome to the approach, and I certainly agree with you that we need to make it easy for people to make the transition. I think that is absolutely central to the approach that we all need to take. I'm struck with the parallel with our record on recycling. When you think 20 years ago, few people in Wales recycled. Now we have the third best rate in the world. And why is that? Because it's easy. We've taken the pain away and it's now become habitual. People have their own dynamic, and we all know it from our own lives and become quite obsessed about recycling and chasing down the odd bit of cardboard that's gone down the back of the chair. But, when you look at the difference between transport and waste, since 1990, waste has reduced its emissions by 64 per cent. In the same period, transport has reduced its emissions by 6 per cent, even with the rapid gains in vehicle technology we've seen in that time. And you think about the lessons we can draw from that: we became recycling leaders through sustained investment over a decade, central leadership by the Welsh Government, and determined efforts by local authorities working hand in glove. Now, we did that for waste. We need to do that for transport. We need to make the right thing to do, the easiest thing to do, and it's doable, but it requires a change of approach, and that's what today is signalling.

And certainly, in terms of air quality, we have an air quality Bill that Julie James, my colleague, will be making a statement about very soon. We have a package of reforms. From bus reform, we have a Bill coming forward later this year, which will put in place a coherent system, in contrast to the wild west of the privatised system that we're dealing with at the moment. We have £1.6 billion of investment going into rail and metros across Wales now. There are new carriages into service this week and every month for the next 18 months, and we've increased by tenfold our investment in active travel. There is more to do, and there is a role for low-emission zones, and that's part of the clean air Bill, and we know that Cardiff council is leading the way in looking at introducing congestion charging.

So, I think we have the framework for a policy approach that will tackle this problem. The challenge we have in the short term is the finance we need for buses, and we're all very concerned about the situation the bus industry now faces. The fact of the matter is—. I listened with interest to what Adam Price said in the Chamber earlier, but, collectively, your party and my party have made financial choices. We've prioritised issues. We've prioritised free school meals. We've prioritised cost-of-living measures. We've prioritised, us as a Government, a pay rise for public sector workers. Those are the right things to do. But you can't spend the same money twice, and the money simply isn't in the budget. Adam Price nods, but I'd like to see his workings out. He's seen the Welsh Government budget, just as I have. There is simply money not there in the short term to make up that shortfall, which was never meant to have been sustained; it was an emergency fund. It was never meant to be a permanent solution. That said, we do need to safeguard the network as best as we can. We've managed a three-month extension, and we're working closely with the industry and local authorities to try and do what we can, but, clearly, it's not going to be enough to keep the services as they currently stand, and that is a real shame. Today's announcement is about changing the pipeline for medium- and long-term investments, to shift the funding out of road building schemes into public transport.

There's a long debate to be had over public transport and transport in Wales, but I don't think today is the right time to do it, and I'm sure you don't think that today is the right time to do it.

I've got two questions for the Minister. What is the Welsh Government's policy on new roads to land designated in local development plans for housing development? And, in the 1960s, the Llandeilio northern bypass was built. Does the Minister intend to build a second Llandeilo bypass? And, really, how many other towns and cities have got two bypasses?

Well, thank you for being brief and to the point—much appreciated. So, on the first point about new roads for land identified in local development plans for housing, once you get a chance to look at the roads review, it makes comments on this very subject, and we've had a discussion within Government about the best way to implement this, and this is partly what the review that has already been mentioned that we've asked Anthony Hunt and Llinos Medi to help us with is, to pragmatically marry our planning, transport and climate policies with the development schemes already in place. For example, the project at the Grange near Cwmbran in Llanfrechfa, where, next to the hospital with no bus route, is planned to be a housing estate. Now, we don't want a traditional, edge-of-town, car-dominated housing estate, so the review panel recommends an exemplar project where we build in low car ownership from the get-go, and that's what we want to work with local government to design. Similarly, in Wrexham, the local authority are very disappointed that the roads review panel—and we've accepted—have decided not to build junction enhancements next to a planned large housing estate on the edge of Wrexham town centre, right next to the dual carriageway junctions. Now, we think that will simply create more traffic and will create more congestion. We've said very clearly to Wrexham that we want to work with them to get that development to go ahead, but to do it in a way as an exemplar where we build in low car ownership and we don't contribute to the same problems over and over again. We want access roads to development sites. What we don't want is to use development sites as an excuse to introduce a bypass or a rat run. So, the review panel makes clear that a road in and a road out is what we need, not using edge-of-town developments as a motor for yet more out-of-town roads that generate additional traffic.

As for Llandeilo, the Member knows, and it's mentioned in the plan, that the commitment we made in the budget agreement some years ago stands, to investigate options for a Llandeilo bypass. We continue to do that. We are going through the WelTAG process. We have a proposal for a part extension of the road at Ffairfach, and we will be publishing a preference for the next steps in the coming months.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

I thank the Deputy Minister for the statement today, but I must say I'm disappointed that, at the point of the statement being read out, we didn't have a copy of the roads review available to us. So, in terms of being able to make a sensible contribution today in response to your statement, that's made it very difficult for many Members in this Chamber. This is a 327-page document now, and you said to us in your statement, 

'I would urge Members to read the roads review panel report in full.'

It was impossible for us to do that by the time you got on your feet to make the statement. But, nonetheless, looking at the statement—or the report, should I say—since you have been talking, it's clear to me that north Wales is going to miss out massively as a result of this review. Of the 16 projects that are lined up there, the recommendations are for 15 of those to either stop or to be scrapped altogether, and let's look at some of those. You've already mentioned the Wrexham bypass at junctions 3 to 6 on the A55. You've got the A494 Lôn Fawr Ruthin/Corwen Road scheme to be scrapped; the A5/A483 Halton roundabout work to be scrapped; the A55 junctions 15 and 16 to be scrapped; the A55 junctions 32 to 33, that work to be scrapped; the Flintshire corridor improvement work to be scrapped; and then, the kick in the teeth, the third Menai crossing completely dismissed, despite the issues that we've seen across to the island, even in recent months. My constituents in north Wales are going to be extremely concerned not just at this, but also the reports we've heard earlier in regard to the north Wales metro in terms of the amount of investment intended there, compared to what's happening down in south Wales.

You need to ask the question now, please, Sam.

I certainly will do. What assurances can you give to my residents in north Wales that they'll get a fair share of public transport investment, which clearly isn't happening at the moment?

Well, thank you for the question, and can I first of all apologise that the statement wasn't given to you in good time? It certainly was the intention. I think we started a little earlier and, as a result, there was a delay in getting it before I got on my feet, but that was a sin of omission not commission, and I did in fact meet with Natasha Asghar this morning and briefed her and talked her through fully what the report said, as a courtesy. So, certainly no disrespect was meant, and I can apologise sincerely for that. There's still a chance, of course, to digest it. I wouldn't expect the full report to be digested today. I've had several months to digest it, and I wouldn't expect Members to take it all on board immediately. I'm sure there will be further opportunities in this Chamber and in committees to talk in detail about the report, and I'd very much welcome that.

In terms of the substance of his charge, I realise he does enjoy driving the north-south divide wedge whenever he has the opportunity, but I think he's misplaced on this one, because what this report is doing is applying the decisions already made on the M4—a £2 billion project in south-east Wales—and the Burns commission approach in south-east Wales to the rest of Wales. So, it's not a case of one part of Wales being treated differently; this is about, through a staged process, all parts of Wales being subject to the same rationale. 

We have also set up a Burns commission, as the Member knows, which is currently meeting. It has published its interim report, and it will be engaging with Members for ideas and publishing its proposals in the summer. The idea behind that is just like the Burns commission in the south-east: it'll come up with a pipeline of public transport schemes and other schemes that will be able to be developed up, working jointly with the local authorities, Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government, to put forward for funding to the UK Government for rail schemes and to Welsh Government for other public transport schemes. So, there's no question of the north being treated any differently or being missed out; we've just done this in different phases. 

On the schemes he mentioned, the Menai crossing certainly hasn't been dismissed. The roads review panel looked at it and decided that it did not stand on its merits. They've looked at that scheme as a stand-alone scheme; we want it looked at properly as part of the Burns work to see its role across the north Wales transport corridor. We've asked Burns to look at the Menai crossing within that context and report as part of its work in July. So, it hasn't been dismissed, but the roads review panel have found that it does not stand against the tests by itself. But there is more work to do on that. 

In terms of the Flintshire corridor example, that is a classic 1990s-style £350 million bypass through an ancient woodland. I hear Members on your benches often talking about the nature and biodiversity crisis, and this is a scheme that would work in the opposite direction to that agenda. So, I think it's entirely right that that scheme has been stopped in its tracks. Mark Isherwood has been a great champion for cancelling that scheme. So, you've got division in your own ranks on that one, I would say, as indeed do we. It divides opinion, that scheme. But we've said to the local authority that we recognise that, in Aston Hill in particular, there is a transport problem that could well merit a roads-based solution, and we will work with the local authority to come up with something to help the congestion in Aston Hill. So, we're not taking a blanket approach; we're taking a targeted approach to minimise carbon emissions, to stop induced demand and to reduce speeds where we can in order to both deal with transport problems and deal with the climate emergency. 

Minister, this has taken us back a good 15 years, undoing the good work of my predecessor, Ieuan Wyn Jones, when he was transport Minister, undoing the good work of your predecessors in mapping out why the case had been made for a third Menai crossing and which routes should be pursued and why. Can I also comment on the way that this announcement has been made? I have had a chance, in a short period of time, to read through the review and what it said about the Menai crossing. I have just heard reference there to a further review by the Burns wider look at north Wales travel; that's not mentioned in the roads review, as far as I can see. We have here a decision that states very clearly,

'The A55 Third Menai Crossing should not proceed.'

That is as clear as it possibly could be. It explains why the third crossing, as planned, runs contrary to Government policy, but the decision itself not to proceed with the crossing, I would argue, runs contrary to the Government's own policy. Look at what the report says among the five stated objectives behind the need for a bridge: improving network resilience and reducing reliance on the use of the Menai suspension bridge. I see no reference whatsoever to the fact that the Menai suspension bridge has been closed for three months. I'd love to know when this was signed off. There was mention of—

Rhun, you need to ask—

This is of huge importance to my constituents. 

I appreciate that, but we have lots of people who want to speak as well. 

There's mention of a site visit; I'd like to know when the site visit happened and whether that saw the chaos caused by the closing of the Menai bridge. It says it's to improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, but another part of the review says that one opportunity for increasing modal shift is to dual the railway line on the Britannia bridge. Is that right? Well, the only place where you could put pedestrians and cyclists currently is on that second rail line across the Britannia bridge. So, you're moving, potentially, pedestrians and cyclists away from the Menai bridge. There is so much that this is contradictory here. It is inconsistent with your own policy. The report speaks of increased regularity and severity of weather events; this is a resilience issue. And do you know what? I agree with the principles behind this roads review. I agree with principle that we need to pursue modal shift, and I agree with the principle that decisions to proceed on roads in future should be based on environmental reasons. But there is a missing link here. There should also be a basic level of resilience within our road network and that is what I have argued long and hard for in terms of the need for a third crossing. We have seen in the last three months—

Rhun, I do need to ask you to finish.

—what that lack of resilience means. I'm appalled by this decision, the way that it has been made, and the inconsistencies in the way this Government has made this decision today.

Perhaps I can explain. I realise there are lots of documents for Members to digest in a short period of time. I did provide a briefing to Plaid Cymru this morning to try and allow you to understand the contours of the decision making here. The roads review is not a report of the Welsh Government; it's an independent report. You're quoting there, accusing us of running contradictory to our own policies; it is an independent report. The national transport delivery plan that we published alongside it is the Government policy response. The schemes included in the national transport delivery plans, based on the recommendations in the independent review, are our response; that's what the Government is supporting. Alongside that is the roads policy statement, which is now the new policy of the Welsh Government, and the tests applied for future funding schemes and in the WelTAG process. The panel makes its view clear on the Menai bridge, based on the tests it has consistently applied across the other 55 schemes. You'll see at the back of the report, in the annex, a chapter with a detailed view on that.

He says from a sedentary position, 'It's totally inconsistent.' It's the panel's analysis. It's allowed to be inconsistent. It's not our analysis; it's their analysis. We've asked an independent panel to look at it. We have said—and I've just told him what we have said—'We will ask the Burns commission to look at this in the broader context of north Wales.' I hear what he says about resilience; we have to balance short-term resilience with a longer term resilience to the climate change issues. At the moment, this is a £400 million scheme for which we do not have the funding. So, regardless of the recommendation in the review, it's a slightly academic point at the moment given the state of our budgets from the UK Government. I know there's a hotly contested race going on in Anglesey, and no doubt Virginia Crosbie will be—[Interruption.] Let me finish. No doubt Virginia Crosbie will be issuing press releases this afternoon calling us everything. There is no money from the UK Government to proceed with a third Menai crossing. We're going to look at the Burns commission work in north Wales to look at a whole package of support, and whether or not the resilience case that Rhun ap Iorwerth has just made stands scrutiny or if the work of the roads review is robust in its own terms. We'll return to this question.

Can I remind Members that I have 12 Members who still wish to speak? I understand the passion and the emotion that Members wish to express on behalf of their constituents, but can we try and ensure we keep the to the times to allow all 12 Members to contribute today, please? Jack Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It will come as no surprise to the Minister, I'm sure, that I'm obviously deeply disappointed in today's announcement. It's clear from the publications and the statement you've made today that the red route in Flintshire is not going ahead. Ultimately, this project was about reducing air pollution. Minister, I'm conscious that other Members in the Chamber have similar passions, but this is one deep passion of mine. It's time for you to deliver now. My constituents need immediate action; they don't need more reviews. I'd be grateful if you could update the Chamber today and outline what immediate action looks like, and also what steps you are taking as the Minister responsible to invest all of the money earmarked for the red route in Deeside to alleviate this very serious public health problem.

Thank you. I respect Jack Sargeant's point of view, and I was pleased to meet with him and Mark Tami to talk through the issues. I understand the strength of feeling there is in the local area to address the air quality concerns, and that is why we have decided to look at Aston Hill as a separate case. We will look with the local authority to develop solutions that will bring some short-term benefits to that area. In terms of immediacy, I would point out that the Flintshire red route would not have been immediate. The construction time for that—even if the money had been available, which it is not—would have been very considerable. So, I don't think that is fair.

I know it's been a long-running debate, but what's very clear from these schemes—. When you look at the conclusions of the roads review and each of the panel's suggestions, it goes through the detailed process of how these decisions have been made. In every single case, at the first stage of the options appraisal, there were a slew of other schemes that could have been developed that would have addressed the transport problems in the area, at stage 1. When it got to stage 2, all but the road options, typically, were removed and the engineers focused on taking forward the road option. So, I believe there are other ways of tackling many of these problems short of building a large, expensive, climate-damaging, biodiversity-damaging bypass. I think we need to separate out the issues of air quality that we hope to do something about from the broader case for a traffic-inducing road. I will continue to work with him to understand and address the needs of his constituents, but in a way that is consistent with the climate emergency.

I'll say again to Members that I've often heard many people saying, 'We agree with the principles of the roads review, but in the case of my constituency, there are exceptional circumstances.' I understand that, and that applies to my constituency too. I understand the pressures we all face from a set of expectations and a set of behaviours and investment decisions over 70 years in terms of the way to deal with transport problems. But if you read the report and if you draw through our own commitments on net zero and how that applies to transport, the slowest of all sectors to respond, we should all surely recognise that we need to do something different.

Deputy Minister, a decent road and transport infrastructure is key to a vibrant economy, yet you seem to want to block Wales's progress at every turn. What else have we come to expect from a failed socialist Government intent on banning things and slowing progress down? We could and should have seen an M4 relief road by now, yet this ludicrous decision to scrap the M4 relief road was taken despite spending £157 million on it, despite the vast inward investment that that would have brought. It just goes to show this Government will spend millions of pounds on anything apart from improving our road infrastructure. This Government wants to seemingly ban driving or make it impossible to drive, which, for someone living in a rural area, like many people in Wales, is a little bit insane, without significant public transport routes in place or laying more track. I cannot see this in any of your plans. On some of your successes to date, Deputy Minister, there has been no increase in the uptake of cycling for active travel purposes, and no money spent on advertising active travel since 2018 by this Welsh Government. Wales is falling significantly behind on moving towards electric vehicles, as my colleague Natasha Asghar outlined. And to top it off, the Welsh Government has reduced spending on active travel in 2023-24. Deputy Minister, I have one question for you: with an inadequate rail service, failing airport and crumbling roads, how do you expect people to get around, let alone get this economy moving again?

First of all, Deputy Presiding Officer, given the complaints that have been made in this Chamber about the use of language around mental health recently, I would question whether the use of the term 'insane' is appropriate. The Conservatives have made criticisms about other Members, and I think they should apply that to their own. Perhaps I'd ask you to consider that when you examine the record.

As ever, I enjoy Laura Anne Jones's rehearsals for the Conservative leadership election, pressing the buttons of her grass roots, continuing the culture wars whenever she gets an opportunity. Her starting premise is simply false. Nobody disagrees that a decent road infrastructure is key to the modern economy. If you'd taken the trouble to listen to my speech before writing your own, you'd have noticed that we said that we will continue to build roads, that road building is a key part of our transport approach, but we need to reassess the type of roads we build, the purposes for which they're built and the way in which they're built. Your own Government's net-zero capacity—[Interruption.]—will surely support that.

We are having the usual tropes from the benches in a sedentary position that we're anti-roads, anti-inward investment. These are vacuous slogans without any basis in policy, intellectual analysis or rigour—[Interruption.] If you took the trouble to read the report instead of pressing buttons for your own activists—

Can we allow the Deputy Minister to give his answer, please?

—we would have a richer debate. The issue of spending on active travel being below where we would have seen it is an issue of capacity in local authorities. That is an issue we are addressing with local authorities, who simply can't spend the budget we are making available for them. That's why the money is where it is. So, I do hope that we can all do better than this, because it's not going to address any of the problems we face. This is just inane tittle-tattle. 

Can I assure the Deputy Minister that we will review the transcript?

Thank you.

I think we are here to both represent our communities and our constituencies, but also to take the wider picture, and that is hard. I and three others in this Siambr represent Mid and West Wales, and Brecon and Radnorshire is the most sparsely populated constituency in England and Wales. So, we do know about rural communities, but I stand here saying that I support this review, and I'm here to say that we need to take a brave step forward for the most pressing issue that we have ahead of us, which is the climate emergency. I will be defending this, and I'm sure I'll come in for a lot of stick, but we need to be saying: let's have more bus services, let's look at how we develop our opportunity to be an exciting, vibrant country that demonstrates that we don't need to rely on roads, that we're taking the climate emergency seriously, and let us go ahead on the basis of this. 

I support this statement, and I would like to ask the Minister: what can you offer to rural communities? Because it is important that we hear exactly what this roads review can offer to rural communities, including, I hope, looking at enhanced bus transport and, I would hope, free bus transport for our under-25s. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Thank you for that, and it's a consistent position that Jane Dodds has taken on these issues, and I appreciate it. On the point of rural areas, which I know is something that the Conservatives have been raising too, I fully accept that, in rural areas, you need a different approach to urban areas. It's entirely possible to do that. If you look at rural Switzerland or rural Sweden or rural Germany, with much deeper rural areas than ours, they manage to have, in many parts, a bus service to every village every hour. There's nothing set in stone that we can't provide alternative transport in rural areas. These are choices we've made. Of course you're more likely to be car dependent in rural areas than you are in urban areas, but there are other things that we can work together on. I published a written statement last week on rural areas, I've been holding a series of round-tables with local authorities and others who live in rural areas. It's interesting now how the Conservative benches have gone quiet and they're looking at their phones while I'm actually answering their questions, because they're denied their cheap campaign lines. The truth is that there is an answer for rural areas if we want to find it, and if we are to tackle climate change, we have to tackle it in urban and in rural Wales, and we need to work together on solutions rather than constantly saying there's nothing that can be done in rural areas. 

Now, on Jane Dodds's specific point about her constituency, one of the concerns, I know, is speeds in rural areas, and our next piece of work is to review speed limits across the country. One of the key points in the roads review is that, where there are accident black spots or safety concerns, we should be looking to reduce the speed limits in those areas first, and do small-scale interventions rather than rebuilding entire corridors to make them suitable to drive at a faster rate. So, I don't think there is any tension, actually, between a viable, safe rural transport system and the climate goals—it's how we go about it. 

But, of course, in the real world, it is the Welsh Government that is taking services further away from people. It was the Welsh Government, of course, that funded a new hospital without any public transport links at all for my constituents, and I've come back here for the last six, seven years, and been assured by every Minister who's held that portfolio that public transport links would be provided, and they haven't been. They haven't been today. And so, what I want to see from the Welsh Government is more joined-up thinking—that, if we're going to take services away from people in terms of distance, then what we have to be able to do is to provide a public transport option that is available for people to reach those services, and that hasn't happened.

It's the easiest thing in the world to make a pious speech or to say 'no'. What is more difficult is designing the public transport structures and systems that give people a real choice, and the most striking part of your statement for me, Deputy Minister, was when you said that most successful economies have modern, successful public transport systems. Now, you know, and I know, that the deregulation of the buses, which didn't happen in London, of course, by Thatcher's Government has wiped out bus services across Wales—rural and urban—and what we need to do is to reinstate those. So, what we need to sit alongside this statement is another statement on the alternatives available to people, to some of the most poor and vulnerable people in the country, because promising more committees and more commissions year, after year, after year is not going to cut the mustard any more. People want to see real plans for real public transport options, and when that is done, you won't need to make speeches like this; you won't need to have any more statements—

Alun, can you conclude now, please? 

—because people would make the choices themselves. 

Of course, I agree with that, and I said earlier that we need to make the right thing to do the easiest thing to do. We need public transport to be on the doorstep for people to turn up and go. And one of the purposes of redirecting our roads pipeline is to free up finance in future years to allow that investment to take place. We are suffering at the moment from past decisions and from, as you said rightly, a fragmented and privatised public transport system, and, of course, the headwinds of COVID, which has caused real damage. He's absolutely right about the lack of joined-up thinking about placing services at out-of-town sites, and we need to stop that, and that's one of the things that the roads review makes very clear.

Julie James and I have been working on the new 'town centre first' policy statement, which will be published soon, which has, at its core, the need for the public sector, in particular, to join up and think about where it places its services so that it strengthens town centres, and it doesn't occur to drag them out into out-of-town centres where no thought has been given to public transport. He is right; that example is a scar on the record of joined-up thinking in the public sector. In terms of the private sector, Julie James has already published a new planning policy, 'Future Wales', which makes those sorts of developments out of line with policy. 

In terms of alternatives, we have provided and trialed the 'fflecsi' demand-responsive bus in Blaenau Gwent, and the results in different settings have been very encouraging. It's been different in the different places we've trialed it. We've got some good data that we're now evaluating. The challenge then will be to spread and scale, but, as ever, when the budgets are as they are as a result of austerity, which is a political choice by the Government in London, we don't have the resources to do all the things that we want to do. And the specific example that he quotes of the bus service in Blaenau Gwent, which, as he knows, we've tried very hard to put a publicly-subsidised bus in there, but it has been challenged by a commercial operator, and that's one of the reasons why we are re-regulating the bus network to make sure that there's a coherence to the transport system, and is not left to the randomness of the market. 

I would like to say that the one thing I would say about you, Minister, Lee, is that your heart is in this, and it has been for quite some time, and no-one is denying that we need more active travel. But I think the point that Alun Davies, my colleague, has made is the fact that you get your infrastructure in place, then you can decide not to do what we've always done and keep building roads. But I am going to have another moan about my two roundabouts on the A55, because part of the reason is about the environment and climate change, and also about air pollution. Really, I would ask you now today to review the options on those two roundabouts.

I'm also told that the Holyhead free port could be under threat if those roundabouts are not removed, because there are no roundabouts from Hull to Holyhead in that way, and those roundabouts do cause congestion now for my residents, where, when you did go to consultation, £9 million—and it was proven that those roundabouts should be taken out. They were scrapped before even this roads review. All I would say is that you've seen the keen interest. We've all got issues in terms of our own constituencies. As a shadow Minister for climate change and environment, we've been taking extensive evidence on our public transport system, and it does not make good reading for anybody or for the Welsh Government. You need to get that infrastructure in place. People are not going to get out of their cars and get on to buses that don't exist, or get on trains that are unreliable, sometimes very dirty and are often cancelled. I would just ask you, Minister: can we have a full debate on this? 

Dirprwy Lywydd, you've been really, really good letting all of us have our little say today. I was excited for this roads review and the plan, and today, my bubble has been burst, because we've not been able to really scrutinise it. So, please step up to the mark. Let's have a good debate next week on it, a Government-brought debate. Cheers. Thank you. 

Well, I sincerely am sorry to burst your bubble, Janet. It is hard to keep up, I must say, because when we made the decision not to go ahead with the roundabout changes, you told me that you were in favour of the decision. You're now against the decision. So, it's quite confusing. The point about those roundabouts, like the other decisions made in the roads review, is that, when schemes were built for road-safety reasons, the cases being made by our own departments and engineers were that the way to deal with that was by putting in grade-separated junctions—so, flyovers, in effect. Now, as I mentioned in the speech earlier, a third of all emissions from transport schemes come from the embodied carbon in the scheme. So, grade-separated junctions are expensive, they use a large amount of carbon, and the safety case that you make—if you read again the report that the roads review issued of those junctions—the safety case had not been made. They were effectively about increasing traffic flow and traffic speeds. Now, that is not consistent with safety.

I know nothing about your claim that it would put economic development in jeopardy, and I'd like to hear some evidence behind that, if that is, indeed, the case. But let me go back to the earlier point: you said that you want to put the infrastructure in place first and then look at the services. You know, this is a chicken-and-egg situation. We've been trying this approach of, 'Let's deal with this traffic problem with a bypass; let's deal with this traffic problem with an extra lane' for 70 years, and what it's done, as the roads review makes clear, is generate extra travel, which, then, the roads fill up and there's more congestion and then you have more investment. So, there is never any money to fund the alternatives. At some point, we have to break this cycle to put us in a way that we are fit for purpose with the climate targets that you and I have both said publicly we support, because it's no good supporting the target if you don't support the actions necessary.

The announcement regarding the decision to stop the Llanbedr bypass was made in the autumn of 2021. It was the wrong decision and it came as a very bitter pill after decades of promises. So, while we accept that everything must be done to tackle climate change, not only should this action allow for a just transition, but it should also be commensurate with the likely impact on the communities affected. In Llanbedr's case, we're not looking at a road that will add further vehicles to the road network, but rather, we're looking at a plan to improve the safety of the local residents and strengthen the local economy.

In fact, the Deputy Minister talked, in his presentation, about the most vulnerable people who suffer because of a lack of public transport. He talked about improvements in public transport and increasing active travel. Yet, in the year and a half since the Llanbedr announcement was made, we've seen no investment into any of these things in Llanbedr or even the Meirionnydd coast. In fact, last week, the Government intended to cut the bus emergency scheme, making routes along the Meirionnydd coast unviable for most bus providers. And, in another part of my constituency, we've seen the essential T19 service cut as well without any help from the Government. So, it seems like a lot of warm words but no action at all as far as the Meirionnydd experience is concerned. So, can the Deputy Minister tell me today what investment is the Government putting into Llanbedr and the Meirionnydd coast, so that the people living in those communities have easy access to all that they need to live a life of dignity and free of the deadly dangers that they currently face? Also, the Llanbedr report recommended building an amended version of the original proposal, with a slower speed limit. This would be welcomed by the community, but we've had no movement on this as yet. So, will the Deputy Minister commit to this alternative here today and have a meeting with me and the stakeholders to move this plan forward? Diolch.

Well, as the Member knows, I've already agreed to meet with him and a delegation from Llanbedr to discuss the issue. I'm slightly gobsmacked by his claims of a lack of action, when we have been trying repeatedly to make progress with the local authority, who have not engaged in a way that has brought progress with us. We've had meetings—they've certainly turned up to meetings—but we've had no willingness to seriously engage in solutions. Instead, they've gone outside the devolution settlement—this is a Plaid Cymru-led council—to appeal to Westminster, who have no powers over transport, to fund, over the heads of their devolved elected Welsh Government who do have powers for transport, a scheme under the levelling-up fund, at the same time as Plaid Cymru are here, pushing us to reach net zero by 2035. You know, I think the contradictions are breathtaking. We remain willing to work with the local authority. I would like to treat Llanbedr as an exemplar rural scheme, to try and find alternative solutions to deal with the problems. I've said that to the council leader, I've said that to the cabinet member on multiple occasions, and I remain willing to work with them, but it takes two to tango.

Deputy Minister, you will be aware of my long-standing commitment to the Cynon Gateway North, working alongside residents of Llwydcoed and Penywaun and the local councillors there. The purpose of the gateway scheme is to mitigate the forced dispersal of traffic from the dualling of sections 5 and 6 of the Heads of the Valleys road, due to the permanent removal of the main Hirwaun entry and exit point. Can you place on record today the fact you understand that this is a scheme that is not designed to increase road capacity, but rather to mitigate the effects of the removal of this main route in and out of the Cynon valley? I'm encouraged to hear that local authorities will be able to start resubmitting their plans from the start of the next financial year, in just a few weeks' time. So, can you give an undertaking that your officials will work closely with Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council to explore how this scheme might be amended in order to meet the future road building tests?

Thank you. I understand Vikki Howells's position on this road, and she's been consistent in her campaigning for it. The roads review examined it, and they set out in detail in their report the reasons why they don't think it's compliant with the tests that it has set, and we've agreed with, to develop as a road scheme. That said, we have said in our national transport delivery plan, and in the conversations I've had with both her and with Andrew Morgan, the leader of the council, that we are willing to look at this scheme to see if we can make it compliant with our policies, to see if it can meet the tests. And that applies to all schemes in Wales: where there is a genuine transport problem in a community, we want to tackle that problem. We're not convinced that building a traditional road scheme is the best way to do it; we think there are other ways. Let's try and find an agreement and a consensus way forward, so we can help her constituents.

There are three schemes that are referred to in my constituency in the roads review report, all of which, unfortunately, it's likely, appearing from the document, are going to be scrapped. Now, these are schemes that I've corresponded with you and your predecessors on over many years and each time I have corresponded with you, up until the roads review started, everything had a green light and the work was going ahead, and dates were being scheduled and everybody was being prepared for the work.

I refer in particular to the Maes Gamedd junction in Gwyddelwern, a project that has been promised for well over a decade, with you and your predecessors giving me answers to written questions saying that the work would proceed. That's a dangerous junction, which needs to be addressed, and the local community will be looking to you to find out why on earth it isn't going to be addressed, given today's announcement. The Corwen road and Lôn Fawr junction on the A494 in Ruthin—another project that has been promised for a very long time, a gateway into Ruthin, a junction that needs to improve, Minister, if I may say, in order to deliver active travel on a circular route around Ruthin as a town. And yet you're scrapping a piece of work that will enable the delivery of that, and yet you're saying you're in favour of active travel. And I believe you're in favour of active travel, but I don't see how that decision is consistent with your ambition to deliver it. And a third scheme—Abergele town centre congestion scheme—again, ditched. And this is a town that is facing congestion on a daily basis, not just in the summer months, when it's very acute because of the visitors that we receive, but every single day of the week.

So, I would challenge you, Minister: come with me to my constituency. I'll give you a tour of these locations, and you can see for yourself the problems that your decision is going to result in as a result of the scrappage of these particular schemes. And I do hope that you'll consider my invitation, because I want you to see first-hand, for yourself, why scrapping these schemes doesn't make any sense.

Well, I'm sure you've had a chance to look at—perhaps not in full yet—the reasons set out for the three schemes in the roads review. For example, on the Maes Gamedd road junction improvement on the A494, the review panel says that it

'should not proceed in its current form. The safety of the junction should continue to be monitored. Further options to reduce speed and improve the visibility splay at the existing junction should be developed if the collision record suggests that action should be taken.'

In our national transport delivery plan, we have said that we will consider

'alternative and small-scale options to improve safety, aligned to tests set out in the Welsh Government's response to the Roads Review.'

I think that it's another example of that we're not denying that there's a problem, and we're not saying that we don't want to work on a solution, but we need to make the solution proportionate, in carbon terms, to what's appropriate at that junction. And I think that that's what we will continue to do. So, I think that your constituents can be reassured that we're committed to work to find a safe solution, but one that meets the tests that we now have set out in policy.

I fully support Janet Finch-Saunders's request for a full debate. We need to be able to digest all the content here—and I do accept that you did apologise, Deputy Minister, for not publishing beforehand—because it is important for our constituents that we are able to engage fully in matters like this, and just glancing during the course of debate doesn't allow for that. 

You'll be aware that many local development plans contain national targets for the quarrying of aggregates for roads. This includes Craig-yr-Hesg quarry just outside of Pontypridd, which has been granted permission to proceed with an extension to its life and area quarried by Welsh Government, despite strong local objections. In reviewing the investment in roads, what consideration has been given to how this will impact on the need for aggregates? Communities such as Glyncoch have previously been told that the economic need for the aggregate outweighs environmental or health considerations, which is at odds with the approach you're outlining today in terms of the roads review. Therefore, I think we need some clarification. If there is a review in terms of the need for new roads and the investment in new roads, how will that then impact on the need for aggregate?

I'm not familiar with the detail of the example she quotes, but I would say in general the key finding—. One of the tests we've set for future road schemes is minimising the amount of embedded and embodied carbon that is involved. That implies that we'd use less carbon-intensive materials, so we'd need fewer materials overall. That may well have knock-on consequences. But, rather than give an off-the-cuff response, perhaps I could get back to her once I have the chance to consider it more fully.

Deputy Minister, I rather fear that the cart is being put before the horse today, and has rolled over it. Alternative public transport options really must exist if people are to get out of their cars, and that's what the Wales transport strategy was designed to deliver, but it's hard to find any new alternatives in today's announcement. Does the £56 million earmarked for the A483 junction improvements remain in the national transport delivery plan for improvements around Wrexham? Will you agree to commence the devolution of responsibilities and funding for north Wales trunk roads to north Wales? Given the need for clear and consistent policy as well with the end to new road routes, will new air and ferry routes to and from Welsh ports now be stopped? And finally, as a result of today's announcement, how much extra revenue are you planning to put into bus services as the main alternative to cars?

In terms of the geographical spread, of the 17 schemes that are going ahead in the national transport delivery plan, five are in north Wales, five are in mid Wales, so I don't think the case that there's geographical bias here stands scrutiny. And I don't accept the idea that we should not have a national approach to transport and roads building. So, I don't agree with the Member about that. We've set out a detailed, evidence-based analysis, based on the carbon targets we all joined up to, developing the Wales transport strategy he and I developed together and which we endorsed. The national transport delivery plan is designed to implement the principles in that. I appreciate, at a constituency level, the Member has some concerns about a scheme, which I was pleased to meet him last week to discuss. As I said then, we will continue to work with the local authority to find a way of addressing the local air quality problems in a way consistent with the tests. But building extra road capacity has been shown, time and again, to generate further traffic, which has the overall impact of worsening air quality and damaging the climate. So, I appreciate these are difficult trade-offs at times, and we all have local constituency considerations, and he is not the only one with that, but we have to be prepared to follow through on the policies that we've set out.

Minister, I'm disappointed that a number of schemes that I've been promoting for many years are not progressing, but I was pleased to see that the Caersws road scheme is progressing, and really I suppose to challenge that perhaps it really shouldn't have been in the road review scheme in the first place, because it was more about a safety issue, rather than building a new road. But I think you're pushing at an open door when the report talks about more active travel being included in that scheme; that will gain community support. But, particularly, I notice, Minister, there's no mention of the Pant and Llanymynech bypass—this is a scheme that straddles the Wales-Shropshire border—being progressed, and which had support on the Welsh Government side and the UK Government's side for a number of years, mainly funded by the UK Government, and the road scheme would be largely in England as well, but I think you did confirm to me 18 months ago that this was part of the road review scheme. So, if it's not included, perhaps you could update me on that, and, if not today, perhaps you could write an update with regards to that element and that particular project. 

Thank you. Again, I appreciate you haven't had long to look at it, but I think you'll find in the national transport delivery plan there is mention of the scheme, that it will be subject to the test, like any other scheme is. And as you say, it is largely in England, but we are expected to pay a disproportionate share of the costs ourselves, given how little is in Wales. But that would be treated the same as any other scheme. 

You referred, Minister, to the bypass in Llandeilo, and I welcome the commitment that there is in the transport delivery plan to that particular scheme. But could you explain, in terms of the announcement that you are about to make, as you say, that that will be done on the basis of WelTAG 2, namely the framework that was the basis for the consultation? And will it move on then to WelTAG stage 3 in accordance with what has been presented in terms of the stakeholders? And in your response to the review, in terms of your policy, is there anything that you think could be a barrier to delivering on the commitment you made seven years ago to build that bypass in Llandeilo? 

Well, I know that Adam Price is committed to seeing this scheme through. The words in the transport plan are clear. They are the same words that we jointly agreed between our parties in the budget agreement. As I said earlier, we'll progress to the next step of that process. In terms of the status of policy, we now have a roads policy statement that is Welsh policy, so that will apply to all schemes, and obviously it'll be a material consideration in the event of any planning dispute. So, the policy applies to everybody, and we have made a commitment to you and your constituents for your particular scheme, which we are working through and will honour. 

And, finally, Jenny Rathbone. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Deputy Minister, for commissioning this roads review, which is going to help us align our net-zero obligations with our transport strategy, and it's clear that there's still quite a lot of work to do to ensure our planning policies are also aligned with our net-zero obligations. For example, just as we need to halt unsustainable housing developments, such as the one you referred to in Wrexham—and the one that is in my constituency, the Lisvane housing development, where Redrow has made an absolute killing on it, and I've yet to see any measures to improve active travel or, indeed, bus routes to join up that very large housing development with any public transport, and so that's something that we should all worry about as it starts to reach completion—.

I think that it's really helpful, this roads review, because it gives us a really clear direction of travel. Roads were invented long before the combustion engine. In fact, it was the Romans that built the A5, so it's about how we use our road network and surely we have to focus on those who don't have a car, as to how we can enable them to get around. And I think that the issue I want to speak about, and ask you about today, is really how we can get more rapid bus transport routes with dedicated bus lanes as a vehicle for getting the constituents of Blaenau Gwent or the Cynon Valley into Cardiff without having to use cars?  Because, at the moment, the main reason given by people who bring their cars into the city centre, just to sit for eight hours while they are working, is that they can't rely— 

You need to conclude now, please. 

—on the buses, because they are clogged up in the congestion created by cars, which is an absolutely vicious circle, and I wondered how we can make serious and rapid progress on that in order to make rapid progress there. 

One of my great frustrations is how long everything takes in transport. One of the tensions we have is we have climate science that tells us that we need to act urgently, and we have systems that take forever. If only we could embrace some of the innovation that we saw during the pandemic, when we saw pop-up bike lanes put in place at break-neck speed, in all fairness to local government, but we seem to have reverted to type. That is a real challenge for us, I think.

In terms of your specific point on rapid bus transport, I absolutely agree that that is an essential part of the mix that we need to see. I have awarded money in the current financial year, £1 million, for the consortia to work together on a regional footprint to identify pinch-points and potential regional bus corridors in order that we can then create a pipeline of schemes. I've also made an invitation to the bus companies to identify areas that they think would make a significant difference to their reliability and journey times. That needs accelerating. The purpose of the regional transport plans that we're going to be developing, and the vanguard work that the Burns commission has done in the south-east, is to start mapping out some of these regional bus corridors and then to systematically work together to make them happen. But I share your impatience with the length of time it's taking.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. Before we move on—

I've received a request from two Members to raise a point of order. Alun Davies. 

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. During the statement, in reply to a question, the Deputy Minister referred to Plaid Cymru as shaping the budget. This was also referred to in answer to a question at First Minister's questions. Now, since shaping the budget is a fundamental part of the executive role of Government, it raises significant questions about our ability to scrutinise Members of Plaid Cymru who are shaping the Government and working within the Government. At the moment, there is no means of holding designated Members to account. We need to have a debate in this place about how designated Members function within Government, and decisions that are taken alongside designated Members, so that we can have proper accountability and scrutiny in this Chamber.

Thank you for raising that point, which is an important issue. I don't believe it's a point of order, but it is an important point that needs further consideration, which will obviously be done.

The second person is Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to take issue with the Deputy Minister because he said two factually incorrect things, in my opinion, here today. On one, you said that—. I only raised with you about the two roundabouts in my constituency, and you made the point that I was saying one thing now, but I'd said something else differently, that I welcomed the fact that they were staying. Well, let me remind you of this: on 16 February 2022, I put

'It will come as no surprise, Deputy Minister, that I rise to challenge you on your decision to scrap the roundabout removal schemes on.... These schemes have been on the table since 2017, involving many costly assessments', costing the taxpayer approximately £9 million. And, actually, that's the position I have today. So, I'd like an apology or a retraction of that. 

You also said that there was nothing at the time that indicated there were any safety issues, and I said to you then as well:

'Now, the Welsh Government's own report highlights safety concerns as junctions are not compliant with current design standards; traffic delays as a result of poor network resilience; a lack of suitable diversion routes'.

But, the thing is there, we've got to be very clear when we're speaking in this Chamber that we don't set out to mislead. I don't think you did set out to mislead, but I would like you to correct the record. Thank you.

As the Deputy Minister has already asked me to review the transcript, I'm sure he will also review the transcript and then come back to correct any errors that have been made within it. Okay? Thank you.