Can I thank Adam Price for his contribution and for his questions? I'd agree, people in Wales would be right to be not just cross, but absolutely livid with the historic underfunding of rail investment in infrastructure in Wales over many years. I think it's worth saying that we're not alone, though, in terms of finding the position totally unacceptable. I've been working closely with some of the metro mayors across the border in recent months, and it's very clear that underfunding of rail infrastructure, right across the north—and by the north, I mean above the Watford junction—has constrained the ability of regional economies to grow, and to grow sustainably. My view is that we can't let the UK Government off the hook for historic underfunding, and we must, whilst the responsibility for investment is reserved, play our duty in bringing forward compelling business cases for the UK Government to consider, and to make them so strong that they cannot be resisted, but, at the same time, to do what we can to convince the UK Government to step away from a funding regime, from formulas that have an inbuilt bias to the south-east, in particular to London.

So, in terms of there being a plan B, I would not wish to see UK Government excused of their responsibility, and if they are not willing to provide an equitable share of funding for rail infrastructure to be delivered by Network Rail, then they should enable and empower us to be able to have devolved responsibility for rail infrastructure, and with it a fair funding settlement.

I take what the Member says regarding borrowing powers and the ability for us to be able to invest in rail infrastructure, and, of course, we have done just that on many occasions. The problem, at the risk of repeating myself, is that we don't have the ability to direct Network Rail, and, for example, on some of the projects, including rail enhancements to the north Wales main line—the south Wales journey, rather, the south-north journey—the predicted benefits of the enhancements were not realised equally. Some of the projects concerning the improvement to the Wrexham-Chester line have not yet resulted in the predicted and expected benefits, and so it's absolutely essential, if we get devolved responsibility, that we also get the funding to go with it.

I think Professor Barry's report does contain a compelling vision. Adam Price makes the important point that we can't just look at those projects that are contained within the report. For that reason, I should just outline why Professor Barry's report contained the focus that it did on, particularly, the north Wales main line and the south Wales main line—it was because the investment proposals were focused initially on the areas that the Secretary of State for Transport had already identified for further development in north and south Wales, following the cancellation of electrification. Our view is that it's essential, if we are to achieve and realise the benefits of increased investment, that we put forward those business cases relating to areas of work that the Secretary of State himself has identified as a priority, so that we can expedite some of the work that's so crucially required. But, equally, as this work is progressed it will consider further how the connectivity between the regions, including how links between the south, mid and north Wales can be developed and enhanced. And, again, I would stress to Members that, under the current devolution arrangements, the reopening of any lines and the investment in major station improvements remain the responsibility of the UK Government, but our role is in bringing forward those business cases that make it so irresistible for UK Government to invest in them and, at the same time, to continue our fight—and we now have very strong allies in many of the metro mayors—for a rebalancing of investment across the UK's infrastructure network.