And, when we think of it in those terms, when we think of the possibility we're already looking at way over £1.5 billion when you add in these different elements, then I think it is only right and proper, of course, that this Parliament will get the right to decide. Because there's a huge opportunity cost in there: £1.5 billion, £1.7 billion, £1.8 billion. You can have a new integrated transport system, a metro, for Swansea bay and the western Valleys—Mark Barry has estimated £1 billion should do the first phase of that entire new regional transport system. You'd have some money to spare—probably the estimates that have been suggested for the reopening of the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen railway line you could do as well. You could have an entire new public transport system and reopen the railway line in west Wales instead of doing this.

Now, there will be Members, quite rightly, who think, actually, no, there is still—. Their assessment will be different, and they'll see cost-benefit different to my party, and, of course, that's within their right. The point of this motion, very simply, is that range of views needs to be heard and brought to bear on the final decision. Now, we've had debates, I think in every Assembly, on the M4 relief road, partly reflecting the range of disagreement there is. The problem is, of course, they've been brought on opposition motions, and we've heard in recent weeks, of course, that the Government doesn't always listen to the result of opposition debates. That's why this motion makes it clear that it should be brought forward on a Government resolution, so that it's a binding motion. And, you know, that is really standard practice for major infrastructure projects: when we look at Westminster, if we look at some of those mega-projects where, again, there have been a range of views, sometimes within parties as well—HS2, the third runway in Heathrow, even the renovation project of the House of Commons, you could say; that's a major infrastructure project now, £5 billion—there have been votes on these issues. And, of course, that's absolutely vital in a democracy, and the process, with the National Infrastructure Commission and the national policy statements in the UK, is that there is a parliamentary vote—there is a parliamentary vote—as there should be, certainly when we're talking about this level of expenditure. And so I hope that we will get support across the Chamber, across the range of views in terms of what should happen after the end of the public inquiry with this particular project.

I'll just say briefly about the Government amendment, which says that we shouldn't do anything to prejudice or prejudge the outcome of the public inquiry, the point of the motion is that we should have a vote after the public inquiry. That doesn't prejudge; we will then be informed by the outcome of the public inquiry. But, ultimately, it's Parliaments that should decide, surely, on major policy decisions. And, certainly, when we're talking about the scale of the expenditure, the scale of the impact in other terms—in transport, environmental and social terms—then it should be right, it absolutely has to be right, that it's this place that should make the final decision, and we'll be listening very, very carefully to what the Government has to say on that matter.