The original Adam Smith, of course, is a lot closer to the Adam Price that we have here, rather than the Adam Smith Institute, which is a completely different kettle of fish, I think. 

I very much welcome this debate and the welcome from the parties so far that's been given to the principle of having a substantive vote on such a large expenditure. I want to approach the debate from the point of view of the well-being of future generations Act, but I think the issue around the environment and the well-being Act will be debated thoroughly in another time. I want to approach it from the point of view of policy making and how we use our resources for policy objectives in light of that Act. 

The first thing to say around that, of course, is that, with the title, we have been pretty clear: future generations is the future parties Act, if you like. So, as an opposition party here, Plaid Cymru wants to become the Government of Wales. I'm sure the Conservatives also want to become the Government of Wales. I'm not sure about UKIP—I would never even presume to know what UKIP thinks these days. But, anyone who's elected to this place wants to become the Government. We want to have, therefore, a real say in any major, even super, investment that will bind the hands of future generations and future Governments as to how they might address the real challenges of Wales for the future, not just in terms of the environment but in terms of infrastructure, in terms of anti-poverty work, in terms of dealing with the future economic needs of Wales. I can't put it better than was put in 2015 by someone, who said:

'It is, to me, astonishing that a Government that is committed to reducing poverty will spend £1 billion of public money on a project that will have no economic impact on my constituents'.

I think that person is no longer in his place, but he is the Member for Blaenau Gwent, speaking after Jenny Rathbone was dismissed from her post for criticising these proposals. So, I think I want to apply that prism of future generations very hard to this decision making and to allow this Chamber and this Parliament to make that final decision.

Now, it's been very clear from the evidence given in the local public inquiry just how badly fitted to the future generations Act this proposal is. As the future generations commissioner said herself:

'Building roads is what we have been doing for the last 50 years and is not the solution we should be seeking in 2017 and beyond.'

Those trends that we are talking about in Government that other Members here have talked about, from automation to decarbonisation of transport, emissions reduction, the changes in air quality that will emerge as we go from a fossil fuel-led transport system to one that's more reliant on electric vehicles, hydrogen possibly—all of those need to be factored in to such a major spend that will influence future generations, not just one generation but two or three generations to come. And also, of course—