Senedd rejection for renewed calls for M4 relief road
Sam Rowlands described the M4 relief road as a golden opportunity, not only to ease congestion for motorists but also to boost the economy.
The Conservatives' shadow finance secretary said the Welsh Government spent £135m of public money on the project before it was scrapped in June 2019.
He accused then-first minister Mark Drakeford of breaking a pledge on the £1.6bn relief road and going against an inquiry's finding that the costs would outweigh the benefits two to one.
Mr Rowlands told the Senedd: 'At every step of this journey, there's been indecision and money wasted. At the end of it all, it's been the Welsh people who've had to suffer as a result. And nothing has been done to ease congestion around Newport ever since.'
Peredur Owen Griffiths, Plaid Cymru's shadow transport secretary, criticised the Tories for calling for a new road through a site of special scientific interest.
Calling for a more affordable and environmentally sustainable solution, he raised the lengthy and costly completion of the Heads of the Valleys Road improvements.
He told the Senedd: 'After 23 years of roadworks and around £2bn later, [the] Welsh Government will now pay more than £40m a year for 30 years to a private firm before the road will be publicly owned in 2055.'
Mr Owen Griffiths, who represents South Wales East, criticised the Welsh Government for being 'too slow' to put forward a genuine alternative solution to M4 congestion.
John Griffiths welcomed £445m from the UK spending review for rail in Wales, including three new railway stations planned in his Newport East constituency.
Mr Griffiths called for urgency in taking forward the recommendations of the Burns commission 'after far too much delay'.
Natasha Asghar said her constituents in South Wales East are regularly faced with bumper-to-bumper traffic and long delays on the route which is not fit for purpose.
'These never ending clogs are not just a nightmare for those stuck in them, they're also a major economic roadblock,' she said. 'The constant gridlock and unreliable nature of the M4 is undoubtedly making Wales a less attractive place to do business.'
Senedd members voted 32-12 against the Tory motion following the debate on June 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
The Tories are becoming two parties in one. Which one will prevail?
But for the two parties of the right, there are more existential issues to keep in mind. The Tory party in Scotland finds itself in the hottest water it has encountered since devolution began. The party bumbled along for the first few terms of Parliament in the mid teens in vote share, translating to the high teens in seat numbers. As the anti-devolution party, they spent a fair bit of the first decade just trying to convince people they actually wanted to be there, with their first leader David McLetchie also making a good fist of putting into place some sort of liberal, free-market policy platform as an alternative to the social democratic consensus which was emerging. Read more by Andy Maciver The theoretical high-point of the party was when, under Annabel Goldie, it struck up an informal agreement to prop up the minority SNP administration of Alex Salmond. In reality, though, the SNP got what it wanted out of that arrangement for pocket change, and the Conservatives were unable to use those four years to derive any kind of sustained shift in sentiment. At its lowest ebb after the 2011 election, the party was saved, not by something to argue for but by something to argue against; independence. In the wake of the independence referendum, with the Labour Party in the grip of Jeremy Corbyn – who had indicated his agnosticism towards Scotland's future in the UK – and with the SNP having won a landslide victory in the 2015 General Election on a ticket of promising another independence referendum, the Tories scored the open goal with which they had been presented. In elections in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021, with constitutional temperatures running hot, the core Tory vote in the teens was joined by a large number of unionists who held their noses and voted for the party they thought would stop another referendum. The trouble is, though, that the party's vote was built on sand. The Tories should, by now, have realised that they have been victims of their own success. The UK Government's belligerent "no, never" approach to granting a referendum led to the Scottish Government pursuing the case in the Supreme Court that led to the now-famous judicial decision that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for an independence referendum. With independence off the table, and the Tories heading out of office, those "transactional Tories" who backed the party for four elections over five years chewed them up and spat them out. Add to the mix the rise of the Reform party, and you have the story of why, at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, Scotland's primary party of the centre-right polled six per cent of the vote. We should understand what that means. Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse sits within the Central Scotland electoral region. In 2021, with over 18 per cent of the vote, the Tories returned three MSPs. In the neighbouring Glasgow region, its 12 per cent gave them two MSPs, and next door in West Scotland (where the party's leader Russell Findlay has his seat) a 22 per cent vote share gave them another three seats. Through east, in the other urban region of Lothian, a 20 per cent vote share gave them another three. That's 11 MSPs across those four urban regions – around one-third of the party's total. An outcome more like the six per cent the party polled in the by-election puts every one of those seats at risk. In all probability, there are enough rural areas in West Scotland and in Lothian to keep them in the game, but only just. There is angst within the Tory MSP group that the party's strategy amounts to no more than hoping Reform will implode. In reality, though, it's about the best strategy available to them in the short term. Cross your fingers, folks. This is not true, though, in rural parts of the country. It is interesting to look back at that 2024 General Election, at where the party kept its seats. The Tories have retained a good amount of land mass, up north and down south, still popular in rural areas. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election changed the political ground in Scotland (Image: PA) There is an underlying story here, of two parties under one banner. There is the Tory party of the blue-collar, hacked off, law and order urbanite, driven by concerns over community issues from anti-social behaviour to potholes, with unsubtle views about the impact of immigrants and even more unsubtle views about the distribution of welfare to them, and a sensitive radar to woke issues. That is the party of Mr Findlay, for sure, but the trouble is it is also a mirror-image of Reform. If there is a distinction between Mr Findlay and defectors to Reform such as Glasgow councillor Thomas Kerr, then it is a distinction I am yet to spot upon hearing the two men speak. They are fishing from the same pool and, in the by-election and in national polling, it is Mr Kerr's party which is catching the bulk of the fish. Then there is the Tory party of rural Scotland; the entrepreneurs and small business owners, the free-market liberals concerned about the pernicious economic environment; the hard workers impinged by dismal infrastructure. Ironically, this is very much the party of Mr Findlay's Deputy, Rachael Hamilton. This party does fairly well, and in truth is more in tune with the needs of rural people and rural businesses than any other, including the SNP. We may find, in May next year, that the party's Holyrood map looks more like its Westminster one; strong to the north and to the south, but gutted in the middle. Maybe, as we inevitably move into a fractious parliament and perhaps to a future with more new entrants into Holyrood, and as Scotland's productive economy becomes more focussed on rural Scotland, it is this version of the Tory party which will prove its longevity. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
The ultimate disruption: What if Reform promised a referendum on Scottish independence?
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It was billed as a new forum to pose 'the big questions' about Scotland's future, and in fairness Tuesday's Scotland 2050 conference offered a decent line-up, with an intriguing pairing of economy secretary Kate Forbes and Cherie Blair and keynote speeches from First Minister John Swinney and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar. They are, of course, always 'keynote' speeches, shorthand for a solo spot without interruptions in which little of any note, key or otherwise, is said, and judging by transcripts and subsequent coverage, the presentations at Edinburgh's Assembly Rooms lived down to expectations. 'We were expecting great visions of the future and what we got were stump speeches,' said one attendee who knows about these things. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But it received extensive coverage, so those who bankrolled the free event, presumably the property companies who put up panellists, will have been satisfied with their investment. However, it was who was not there that was most revealing. The faces and names might have been different, but the line-up was drawn from the same sort of bien pensants who have dominated the Scottish Parliament since its inception, and before that the Scottish Constitutional Convention and other 'Civic Scotland' talking shops. 'Scotland 2050 will be Scotland's most inclusive one day conference,' said the blurb, 'We believe that new thinking is required to reimagine what can be achieved to deliver a new enlightenment'. Perhaps, but whether by accident, absence or design, Scotland's most inclusive one day conference did not include anyone from the Scottish Conservatives, and there was no-one from Reform, the party which won 26 per cent of the vote at the Hamilton by-election. I was, however, at an event that evening which was attended by four of the emerging party's leading figures, some of whom I doubt are even household names in their own households, but all the same they are people who are making the political weather; disruptors, bogeymen, crypto-fascists, denigrate them however you like, but poll after poll indicates there will be around 15 Reform MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. While plenty of their more prominent candidates are former Conservatives, as a party Reform is unburdened by a past political record, and while a clean slate, blue-sky thinking or whatever might produce quite bonkers ideas like Nigel Farage's suggestion that a Reform government would re-open South Wales coal mines, it does reveal a party prepared to think the unthinkable in the quest for votes. The other side of the Hamilton coin was the trouncing of the SNP, finishing second in a seat it had held, with vote share down nearly 17 per cent, compared to the Conservative loss of 11 per cent. Speaking separately to two prominent Nationalists this week produced the same analysis; that the SNP is a hollowed-out party in which critical thinking has been crushed, controlled by a failed hierarchy unable to produce workable ideas to take Scotland forward economically and advance the independence cause. Both saw opportunities arising around the time of the next general election, in the next ten years certainly, but with the party as it stands incapable of taking advantage, a spent force in a state of financial and intellectual collapse. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I am not close enough to vouch for its accuracy, and of course the SNP leadership would claim it's fighting fit, but when the number of people who say they currently favour independence is about 20 per cent higher than those who say they will vote SNP, then something is badly wrong. The failures of the UK Labour government so soon after a general election victory based on hope is making no difference to SNP support, but even if independence is less of a priority for most voters than the cost of living, NHS, immigration, schools and crime, Unionists can have no cause for complacency. In the run-up to a general election in 2028-29, what if an ostensibly Unionist, but ultimately opportunist UK party like Reform were to make a manifesto commitment to offer the chance of a referendum with few strings attached? Maybe if independence support polling at 55 per cent for a year. No other Unionist party would match it, and neither could the SNP because it can never be in power in London. There is an obvious risk some Conservative defectors would return to the fold ─ and one, but not all, of the Reform folk on Tuesday night was quick to say it won't happen ─ but Nigel Farage could easily promise Reform would campaign for the Union while agreeing a referendum, as did David Cameron when signing the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012. He could argue that the principle of sovereignty and self-determination is consistent with the position taken by UKIP and the Brexit Party, and there would be no shortage of ordinary English voters who would be quite happy for Scotland to depart and for the Barnett Formula billions to stay south of the border.
South Wales Argus
6 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Senedd members lambast bluetongue response as 'total chaos'
Samuel Kurtz, who is from a farming family, expressed deep concern about the Welsh Government's handling of the disease, saying it 'falls far short of what farmers deserve'. The Conservatives' economy secretary said Senedd members received no briefing from the deputy first minister nor the chief veterinary office on the science behind the decision. Mr Kurtz warned: 'There has been no economic impact assessment despite the far-reaching consequences for our rural community. 'And perhaps most troubling of all, the decision was issued via a written statement on a Thursday afternoon – just after the Senedd week had ended, ensuring no scrutiny, no questions and no answers until today.' He told the Senedd: 'We all understand the importance of protecting Welsh livestock from bluetongue but the measures imposed are not only excessive, they're unworkable.' 'Requiring pre-movement testing for all live imports, even vaccinated animals, might look reasonable on paper but – in the real world of Welsh farming – it's chaos." He put the cost of vaccinating all livestock in Wales at £32m – £6 a cow and £3 for every sheep or goat – placing a 'staggering financial' burden on a struggling industry. During a statement on the Welsh Government's approach to bluetongue on June 17, deputy first minister Huw Irranca-Davies said policy will be kept under regular review.
