Speaking ahead of the meeting, he outlined the work which has taken place to  date and explained why the Welsh Government’s preferred solution was a third Menai crossing.

The Economy and Infrastructure Secretary said:

“I have long been clear in my commitment to a third Menai crossing, and the obvious benefits it would bring to local communities and the economy. The current system is often at or over capacity and with major projects such as Wyfla Newydd in the pipeline it’s imperative that we act quickly to look at how we can improve accessibility.

“We’ve looked in detail at all possible solutions to the existing Britannia Bridge, from providing three narrow lanes with tidal flow on the existing bridge to moving the eastbound merge to smooth traffic flow. These options have been ruled out following significant safety issues identified in risk assessments and concerns raised by the emergency services.

“We are now developing a preferred option for a new bridge in consultation with interested parties to see what’s possible. As part of this process, we continue to explore with the National Grid opportunities for a combined road and cable crossing – something which could provide added benefits to the scheme for all concerned.”

Turning his attention to other transport projects currently taking place in North Wales, the Economy Secretary said:

“The A55 is clearly another priority for Welsh Government, with several multi million pound improvement schemes to improve resilience, reduce traffic delays, tackle pinch points and upgrade junctions already in progress,  and the consultation into the £200m Deeside Corridor project almost under way.

“Alongside rail modernisation, our first Wales and Borders franchise and our plans for a North Wales Metro, these are exciting times for transport in North Wales. I’m keen to progress these projects at the earliest opportunity so that communities across North Wales can feel the benefits as soon as possible.”

Premier Li Keqiang sent congratulations to the opening ceremony of the China-Australia Tourism Year, which was held on Sunday in Sydney.

The premier affirmed that cultural exchanges are one of the most significant pillars for a bilateral relationship and he hopes both countries can expand cultural and people-to-people exchanges through such events as the China-Australia Tourism Year.

Li also said China and Australia are popular tourism destinations, with more than 2 million trips made between the two countries last year.

Both countries, the premier said, respect the diversity of global civilization and China is willing to promote cooperation with Australia based on mutual respect and openness, and bring more benefits to both peoples as well as global peace and stability based on their friendship over the past 45 years.

In his congratulatory letter, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the past 20 years has seen major achievements in tourism cooperation due to the efforts of both countries. China has become the most significant tourism market for Australia, and the number of tourists visiting the Oceanic country reached 1.2 million in the last year, he said.

Turnbull said the China-Australia Tourism Year marks the beginning of a new era for bilateral relationships and both countries will share opportunities for development in the future.

More than 2,000 people, including officials, leading tourism figures and local residents, attended the ceremony.

The BBC regularly says it must be getting it right because  both sides accuse it of bias. The problem is there are more than two sides in many cases.

I have never argued the BBC is biased against the Conservatives and in favour of Labour. I understand the lengths they go to criticise  both Conservative Ministers and Opposition Spokesmen, and grasp their idea of balance, offering an alternative  view in many cases.

The issue of bias and alternative truth takes more subtle forms. There is firstly the bias in the selection  of stories. The BBC loves running endless Brexit and climate change stories. It loves making other news items into Brexit or climate change stories, when many of us think there is little or no link. There is the endless sourcing of “the government should spend more” stories, because there are so many lobby groups with that as an objective.  People who want less government, who like Brexit, or are sceptical about the theory that man made C02 is driving damaging climate change do  not feel properly represented. Scientists are not interviewed with a view to highlighting errors, inconsistencies and poor research in the way politicians are.

Then there is the unintentional bias of the questions. Ministers are regularly put under pressure for not spending enough. It is very rare to hear Ministers under pressure for spending too much, for presiding over government waste, for failing to find cheaper and better ways of doing things. There is nearly always an automatic assumption that spending a lot in any particular part of the public sector is good, and spending more is even better. There is little probing behind the slogans to find out what the real numbers are, and to ask why in some cases so much is spent to so little good effect.

There is the permanent anti Brexit bias in many scripts and questions. The interviewer or journalist starts from the assumption that Brexit must be damaging. Good news is then recorded “despite Brexit”, often with a caveat that it could deteriorate in the future when Brexit  bites more. Never do you hear an interviewer asking the other side to comment on how the Brexit vote has triggered higher car output, more homes being built, higher consumer activity, better confidence levels.

Prior to the referendum there was always a bias against Brexit or Eurosceptic speakers. We had to be introduced with unflattering descriptions, interrupted more, and usually assumed to  be wrong. I remember when I was warning about the banking crash and had a proposal on how to handle it, I was competing with Lib Dem Vince Cable. I wanted controlled administration of overstretched banks – the system they now say they will use in future – whilst he wanted bank nationalisation. He got many more interviews than I did. He was often introduced as an expert because he had had a former job as an economist at Shell. I was introduced as a Eurosceptic with my past roles in  business and investment ignored, though they were more relevant experience.

I’m all in favour of them asking me tough questions, but I just want them to do the same for all the so called experts as well.