It's striking, I think, that the roads review report on the third crossing reads like a case for that crossing. I'll quote here. The main cases for change are congestion—not top of my list, actually, but—

'congestion and lack of resilience of' the Britannia bridge and Menai bridge. The

'scheme would improve reliability for freight movement.'

'Access by active travel modes would also be improved.'

'The scheme includes improved routes for pedestrians and cyclists'.

Lack of resilience makes

'Anglesey a less attractive destination for investment'.

A third crossing would overcome...safety concerns.'

'Improving local access for active travel'— again—'would be beneficial.'

'The objective to improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists is aligned with current policy.'

'The objective to promote safety is aligned with current policy'.

It would improve 'reliability for buses'.

'Disruption caused by incidents, restrictions or closure of the existing bridges would be less frequent.'

I could go on. It tells us that the

'Cost-benefit analysis suggests that the scheme would provide medium or high value for money'.

But here's the rub: that benefit appears to be based on an economic calculation tied, it seems, to increasing traffic, which is not something that we're seeking, and which, surely, a link to an island with a limited population, and with the end of the road literally 20 miles that way, isn't comparable to the increase in traffic you could be encouraging by building a road between two large population centres.

This, I repeat again, is about resilience, basic resilience. How about measuring the project in terms of social value, safety value, health value as well, and in terms of, again, the basic economic well-being of an area? The suffering of businesses during the Menai suspension bridge closure was very, very real.

To conclude, Minister, I am preparing a submission to the Burns commission. I hope they too will see that this needs reviewing, and I appeal to you to remember why this strengthening of the Menai crossing was on the table in the first place. It’s because it is needed. The case is as strong as ever.