I thank the Member for the important question. She is absolutely right to say that there are lessons to be learnt from the way in which the dualling of section 2 of the A465 has been carried out, both in the way in which contracts are drawn up and the way in which risks between the Welsh Government and the contractor are spread. Indeed, to turn to the specific point that Vikki Howells made, in that contract the collection of data—for example, through ground condition surveys—was the responsibility of the contractor; I think one of the things we will have learnt from that is that, in future, it would be better if the Welsh Government took responsibility for that, given some of the things that have transpired since. 

But I'm very grateful to Vikki Howells for the opportunity just to be clear—because I think there may have been some confusion about this—that section 2 of the A465 was not a mutual investment model programme, whereas the contract to be used for sections 5 and 6 is to be discharged through the MIM arrangement. It's a fundamentally different approach; it's a fixed price, lump-sum contract, in which the Welsh Government will not pay for the service until it is operational. That will incentivise the contractors to deliver the programme on time. The risk of cost increase and programme delays sits entirely with the appointed service provider in the mutual investment model. We will learn the lessons from earlier sections, but the model we will use for sections 5 and 6 will have all those additional benefits that we think, in this instance, using that form of contract will bring.