No. The First Minister was very clear in stressing that this project is absolutely unique in terms of the scale and in terms of the impact on the site of special scientific interest and that, therefore, it had to be considered in its own right. The First Minister was also very clear when he said that he disagreed with the inspector in terms of where the bar should be laid on environmental consequences of infrastructure, and it's his belief in terms of mitigation that you cannot mitigate the loss of, for example, an SSSI and attempt to then develop a similar environment elsewhere, and that there is a big difference between mitigation and compensation. Since we presented I think a very compelling case, of course, there's been a declaration of climate emergency, a greater understanding and appreciation that we need to act now, that we need to be more responsive and responsible and, therefore, the bar has been raised. Whilst I don't think that the legislation that the Member has pointed to requires amending, I do think it necessitates a very careful consideration within Government of how we take forward, not just transport infrastructure but all infrastructure—social infrastructure, for example, hospitals, schools—to guarantee that the development of buildings, roads and rail systems do not have an adverse impact on the environment, if it's at all possible to avoid it.

The Member, I think, rightly identifies a number of schemes that many might fear will be lost as a consequence of this being seen as having set a precedent. That is not the case. All of those programmes will go ahead. Indeed, we are proceeding with consultations on improvements to the A483 this month, work on the Flintshire corridor, the A494/A55, will be proceeding this summer with further modelling and Welsh transport appraisal guidance work and further consultations and meetings with local stakeholders. Other road projects across the length and breadth of Wales are still in the pipeline to be delivered. This does not shift our position on those.