Question
I greatly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of a further £30 million for the delivery of a new station at Cardiff Parkway, in a constituency that neighbours mine. Does the Secretary of State agree that this investment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Plaid minority Government at Cardiff Bay, who are threatening to close numerous junctions of the M4, worsening air and noise pollution for my constituents?
Answer
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. The Welsh Government must recognise that only a relief road will address the needs of the people, the economy and the environment of south-east Wales. What local people do not need is disruption and junction closures. I was pleased to see the Senedd support Welsh Labour’s motion to rule out closures and to begin work on an appropriate relief road for the M4, and I urge Plaid Cymru to work with Newport council and to reconsider its position.
Verdict: AMBER (35/100)
The reply only partly answers the question. It does not engage with the £30 million Cardiff Parkway investment or compare it with Welsh Government transport spending in Cardiff, and its remarks on the M4 relief road do not fill that gap. On the junction closures, it clearly states the Government's opposition and says local people do not need them, but it does not say whether the closures would increase air or noise pollution for constituents. A constituent would likely need to ask again for the Cardiff comparison and for specific information on pollution.
Verdict: AMBER (35/100)
The minister's reply clearly rejects junction closures on the M4 and supports a relief road and the Senedd motion, but it does not address the comparison with the £30 million Cardiff Parkway station investment. On the environmental question, the reply only implies opposition to closures through general language about disruption, and never directly says whether closures would worsen air or noise pollution. Because the environmental point is answered only in general terms and one part of the first question is missing, the asker would likely need to follow up for specifics.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Secretary of State agree that the £30 million for the new Cardiff Parkway station stands in contrast to the approach of the Welsh Government towards transport investment in Cardiff? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply opens with a bare expression of shared frustration, which does not engage with the £30 million Cardiff Parkway investment or any contrast with Welsh Government transport investment in Cardiff. Statement 4 touches on the Welsh Government's approach, but it concerns the M4 relief road and closures rather than Cardiff transport investment, so the contrast the item asks about is never really addressed. |
| Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's £30 million investment in a new station at Cardiff Parkway stands in contrast to the Welsh Government's approach to the M4, including its reported plans to close numerous junctions? | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply addresses the Welsh Government's M4 approach, rejecting junction closures and backing a relief road and the Senedd motion, but it never engages with the claimed contrast with the £30 million Cardiff Parkway station investment. The opening 'I share my hon. Friend's frustration' is only a sentiment. |
| Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government's reported plans to close numerous M4 junctions would worsen air and noise pollution for constituents in the surrounding area? | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply clearly opposes the junction closures and says local people do not need them, which is the Government's position on the closure plans the item describes. However, it never mentions air or noise pollution, so it only partly answers whether closures would worsen those specific harms for constituents. |
| Does the Secretary of State agree that closing numerous M4 junctions would worsen air and noise pollution for constituents in the area? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply implicitly opposes junction closures ('What local people do not need is disruption and junction closures') and mentions the environment in passing, but it never explicitly agrees that closures would worsen air or noise pollution. The engagement is a general platitude rather than a direct answer. |