Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was going to say halfway through the debate that I felt it was Parliament being at its best because there was a range of views on this issue, but we were coalescing and uniting, actually, around the core principle that, ultimately, Parliament must decide. I was hoping that the Cabinet Secretary, in his remarks at the end, would give us some clarity on that central issue, and yet I'm completely unclear. He can intervene on me, if he would like to, in reverse order to the intervention I made on him.

He talked about having stand-alone votes on stand-alone projects, and then he went on to talk about some of the downsides of that if the precedent was set. I'm not quite clear, still, whether the precedent is going to be set. Is there a commitment to have a specific vote? It's not enough to have a vote on the supplementary budget. The supplementary budget could have a number of things in it. Then I know what would happen, because it's happened to me several times, Lee Waters. I vote for one reason, but then the list of other things that are in the budget I am accused of being against, and they're usually things that no-one could possibly be against. That's why we need to have a specific vote.

In relation to the point that Lee Waters raised, if there are lexicological problems with the motion, then I have the responsibility for that. I think the spirit of the motion is clear, though. What we were trying to do with the motion was to say that the Government could not go ahead with expenditure on the project before there was a vote on the principle following the public inquiry. I think that was clear to me. If it wasn't clear to other Members then I apologise for that, but I'm clarifying the intention. You know, we don't live in a perfect world, and we certainly don't live in a perfect Parliament. So, if you want to actually vote in favour of the principle of a vote on the principle then this will be the only vote that you're going to get, okay. And what I would say—in all honesty, and delving deep into all the resources of charity in my soul, I would say to the Member opposite, I would say to the Member opposite: see beyond your antipathy, either to me or to my party, because there's a bigger issue here, which is beyond party. In fact, as Simon Thomas says, it's beyond generations, isn't it? It's intergenerational equity that we talking about here. And so, I would appeal to him—I know that he is absolutely sincere about the substantive issue, but in terms of ensuring that the Government gives us all a vote then this is our opportunity. Take it. Take it now. Take it tonight. We won't get another chance; this is it.

The consensus that I heard in the contributions in the Chamber, from Andrew R.T. Davies, from other Members, including Lee Waters, I believe, is the figure of £2 billion. I think we all accept that there is a certain kind of inevitability about where we're going to end up. Jenny Rathbone, I think, in a very, very powerful contribution, pointed out that opportunity cost exists in all parts of Wales, doesn't it? Rhun ap Iorwerth referred to some of the relative underinvestment that there's been in some regions of Wales. But it is true: Mark Barry, in his initial assessment of the cost of the first phase of a metro—you know, £1 billion, £1.5 billion, £2 billion would make a massive transformational effect for public transport in the south-east of Wales as well. And it's that opportunity cost calculation that we have to be able to bring to bear as individual Members, across our parties, and, yes, Simon Thomas was right to say that we are—as a party, we have to re-evaluate our position in the light of the evidence that has been presented. So, we place that on the record. We would urge Members—. I realise this is inherently difficult, and I really pay tribute to those Members on the Labour benches who spoke very, very powerfully of the need for us to have a democratic vote, primarily because, of course, of the doubt that you share, we share, about whether this represents true value for money, but also the truest values—the values that we want to enshrine in the future that we're trying to create for our country.

Look, I realise that we all engage from time to time—it's an occupational flaw, maybe—in knockabout. But there are some things that are more important, and if I, in any way, in any comments that I made, have clouded your judgment in that then I would apologise, because— there have been a lot of apologies in this Chamber recently, and I'm prepared to make one as well—this is more important than political theatre. This is more important than actually winning or losing in that shallow sense. This is about the future of our country, and I'm heartened by the sense of consensus in this Chamber, that on these kinds of decisions—decisions that, once made, will impact upon generations to come—then we as a Parliament, as parliamentarians, regardless of party, must insist that we get a vote. And I did invite the Cabinet Secretary—in the few seconds that I've got left, if he wants to get on his feet, if he wants to reassure us that we will get that vote, he can. But I'm afraid to say that the silence speaks for itself. If you want to see that democratic vote then use your vote tonight.