Llywydd, I'm sad to say that the particular example that the Member refers to is an object lesson in how the fund does not meet the needs of Wales. Transport for Wales had a plan to increase services on the Wrexham to Bidston line to two trains an hour from May of this year, from this month. Now, it will not be able to do so. It's not been able to do so because Network Rail has refused permission for those two trains an hour, because there has been an objection from a freight carrier, saying that two trains an hour would interfere with its day timetable for carrying freight. All that could have been avoided had that levelling-up fund bid gone forward—a bid supported by all the local players, a bid supported by the Welsh Government and, astonishingly, supported by the Department for Transport in the UK Government as well. So, here you have a scheme, supported by every level of government that you can imagine, that failed to get funding by the levelling-up fund, and it now means that Transport for Wales cannot go ahead with the timetable improvements that they would have introduced this May, because the matter remains in the hands of the Office of Rail and Road.

What does this illustrate, Llywydd? Well, it illustrates, to my mind, that in a fund, over which there has been no discussion at all with the Welsh Government, funding that ought to have come to Wales—. Remember that the Treasury originally said that there would be Barnett consequentials of the levelling-up fund, only to change its mind a short number of weeks later. So, here is funding that is fragmented, that is unpredictable, where there is blurred accountability, where the risk of duplication and poor value for money is on the surface of the way that that fund has been constructed. It leads to the perverse outcomes that you've heard from Carolyn Thomas this afternoon and, I'm afraid, it's residents of north Wales who are the losers.