I'm not sure if you were here, Alun, but it was the First Minister's language to me earlier at First Minister's questions, and it is the appropriate language for what you have done in respect of your commitment for that absolutely crucial project in your manifesto. Everything you put out now is cover for that—the cost-benefit ratio over two for that. Now, we'll look at other projects. You've got your commission; we'll see how long that takes to report. But the fact is that you had an M4 relief road recommended by the inspector that would give very clear cost-benefit return—whether that is the case for substantive spending commitments in respect of this commission remains to be seen. No doubt, there are some less costly projects that are sensible to do, like the free rescue—why you haven't done that before, I'm not clear.

I don't get this idea that they shouldn't have been looking at alternatives—that it would be prejudicial to have contingency plans for if the inspector didn't approve it or if they decided against the inspector's decision. Surely, a sensible Government would have contingency plans. I don't accept the idea that it would make the decision challengeable in law if anyone in Government was thinking, 'What do we do if this isn't agreed?' It's just a perfectly sensible planning arrangement.

We have our own amendments—amendments 1 and 5—that David's explained the purpose of. Amendment 6 we will be opposing. I was listening to Delyth Jewell, but in amendment 6 Plaid Cymru say, instead of what Labour are proposing to cover their own embarrassment at the betrayal of that manifesto commitment, which is at least to try and focus the spending on Newport and south-east Wales, those who suffer most from that failure and that broken promise—Plaid instead want to spend the money generally across Wales. Now, that speaks volumes about the relative priority Plaid Cymru give to Newport and south-east Wales, and we will be opposing that amendment. I'll give way.