Well, thank you for the question, and can I first of all apologise that the statement wasn't given to you in good time? It certainly was the intention. I think we started a little earlier and, as a result, there was a delay in getting it before I got on my feet, but that was a sin of omission not commission, and I did in fact meet with Natasha Asghar this morning and briefed her and talked her through fully what the report said, as a courtesy. So, certainly no disrespect was meant, and I can apologise sincerely for that. There's still a chance, of course, to digest it. I wouldn't expect the full report to be digested today. I've had several months to digest it, and I wouldn't expect Members to take it all on board immediately. I'm sure there will be further opportunities in this Chamber and in committees to talk in detail about the report, and I'd very much welcome that.

In terms of the substance of his charge, I realise he does enjoy driving the north-south divide wedge whenever he has the opportunity, but I think he's misplaced on this one, because what this report is doing is applying the decisions already made on the M4—a £2 billion project in south-east Wales—and the Burns commission approach in south-east Wales to the rest of Wales. So, it's not a case of one part of Wales being treated differently; this is about, through a staged process, all parts of Wales being subject to the same rationale. 

We have also set up a Burns commission, as the Member knows, which is currently meeting. It has published its interim report, and it will be engaging with Members for ideas and publishing its proposals in the summer. The idea behind that is just like the Burns commission in the south-east: it'll come up with a pipeline of public transport schemes and other schemes that will be able to be developed up, working jointly with the local authorities, Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government, to put forward for funding to the UK Government for rail schemes and to Welsh Government for other public transport schemes. So, there's no question of the north being treated any differently or being missed out; we've just done this in different phases. 

On the schemes he mentioned, the Menai crossing certainly hasn't been dismissed. The roads review panel looked at it and decided that it did not stand on its merits. They've looked at that scheme as a stand-alone scheme; we want it looked at properly as part of the Burns work to see its role across the north Wales transport corridor. We've asked Burns to look at the Menai crossing within that context and report as part of its work in July. So, it hasn't been dismissed, but the roads review panel have found that it does not stand against the tests by itself. But there is more work to do on that. 

In terms of the Flintshire corridor example, that is a classic 1990s-style £350 million bypass through an ancient woodland. I hear Members on your benches often talking about the nature and biodiversity crisis, and this is a scheme that would work in the opposite direction to that agenda. So, I think it's entirely right that that scheme has been stopped in its tracks. Mark Isherwood has been a great champion for cancelling that scheme. So, you've got division in your own ranks on that one, I would say, as indeed do we. It divides opinion, that scheme. But we've said to the local authority that we recognise that, in Aston Hill in particular, there is a transport problem that could well merit a roads-based solution, and we will work with the local authority to come up with something to help the congestion in Aston Hill. So, we're not taking a blanket approach; we're taking a targeted approach to minimise carbon emissions, to stop induced demand and to reduce speeds where we can in order to both deal with transport problems and deal with the climate emergency.