I appreciate Mark Reckless's comments about what a substantial body of work has been carried out by the report, which does command both respect and support across the virtual Chamber.

In terms of the funding of it, rail infrastructure, which forms a large part of the report—apart from the central Valleys lines, which have now been devolved to the Welsh Government—lies with the UK Government. We estimate the cost of implementing the Burns report somewhere between £500 million and £800 million, and we estimate around £0.5 billion of that is spending for the UK Government to do on the railway line. This is money that has been underinvested for years, as I've already mentioned. So, given that we ought to be getting £5 billion, then £0.5 billion shouldn't be an unreasonable request, not least since it delivers on the levelling-up agenda the UK Government talks about.

He also talked about the shared prosperity fund, but I think he has more faith than I do that it's going to deliver anything, because so far, four years or more since the referendum, we're yet to see what a shared prosperity fund looks like. So, I don't think we can put our eggs in that basket when it comes to this project, and even if we did have £2 billion from the UK Government to fund an M4 relief road, it would be the wrong solution. We have declared a climate change emergency and building a large pollution-generating highway through protected wetlands would not be the right thing to do. 

Now, as I say, the good thing about Burns is that it's looked at the problem with a fresh pair of eyes from a carbon reduction point of view, and it has put forward practical ways that improve connectivity, improve the local economy, but without the damaging effects of a scheme that induces and grows traffic. So, I think we have the best of both worlds. We now need to get on with delivering it, and we can only do that in partnership.