Well, may I both acknowledge your endurance and call for two Welsh Government statements, the first on the Welsh independent living grant? As, amongst other things, the chair of the cross-party group on disability, I've been articulating concerns in this Chamber and in correspondence with the Welsh Government since the decision was taken by the Welsh Government to move the Welsh independent living grant into local authority funding, unlike the situations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where a partnership with the third sector was established. The Northern Irish commissioned under the Scottish model to ensure that the independence and control of the service user was protected. I last raised this early in March with the First Minister, describing the proposal as a betrayal of the right of disabled people to live independently and make their own decisions, but, once again—despite my calling on the First Minister to recognise that independence means giving people choice and control, and not having to agree how they spend their money with well-meaning experts in county hall when they're the real experts in their own lives, the First Minister once again rejected this. However, I've now been copied on a report from a charity of which I'm patron, stating that at the recent Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno, on a motion put down by the Clwyd South Labour Party, delegates voted to support the continuation of the Welsh independent living grant, despite the policy of the Welsh Government, and it's been reported that this will now be maintained at least until the Assembly elections in 2021—welcomed by the campaigners led by Nathan Lee Davies from Wrexham, but still keen to stress there's some way to go in securing the grant in the long term. Therefore, given that this isn't just a decision, I'm sure, for any party conference—this is a decision for this place—I think the Assembly must have a statement to bring us up to speed on what is a very important matter for a large number of people, particularly the campaigners who've been fighting so hard to achieve what appears to be some progress in this respect.

Secondly, and finally, could I call again, following calls last week, for a statement on the A487 Caernarfon to Bontnewydd bypass, although my request comes from a slightly different angle? We know that there was a public inquiry. We know that, following the inquiry, the Welsh Government said it would consider the inquiry report and make a decision by the winter. We know that, in March, the Welsh Government said it needed more time to consider the plans, but concerns have been raised with me by local businesses that a document they submitted to the inquiry detailing objections not to a bypass, but to the yellow route favoured by the Welsh Government, presented—. But a legal representative from the Welsh Government, the Welsh Government's barrister—. On the basis of his submissions, they refused the right to question the Welsh Government on the contents of the document, although the legal advice they'd received advised that no judge would make a decision based on any draft report, and any judicial review would only be possible on the issuing of orders. Dare I say that your barrister had said that they should have gone to a judicial review following publication of draft orders, against the legal advice received. They have raised concern with me over what they have described as the total intransigence of the Welsh Government over 10 years in considering the impact on jobs and businesses locally. They do support strongly a bypass, but have been trying to put forward their case—albeit without success to date—in asking the Welsh Government to adopt the orange or black route to protect businesses and jobs. This is a very important matter. The document I referred to is a detailed submission, which confirms that, if you read properly the original submissions, there was 75 per cent local support for the black route. That was not presented in the WelTAG evidence; it wasn't questioned at the public inquiry. I therefore support calls for a statement to the Assembly on this important scheme and in the context of these valid objections and a real threat to jobs in two major local employers on the route.