I welcome this debate thoroughly. My blood pressure went up a little bit at Mark's contribution, so you’ll understand if I address some of the comments in my opening remarks directly to Mark.

First of all, let me say: I'd always want a Government that seeks to be an active partner in economic growth, not a disinterested bystander; one that seeks to work with unions and employers, businesses big and small and co-operative organisations to produce not only growth but growth with a social purpose to deliver a fair economy that works for all, not just a few—and where we have qualitative growth, not just quantitative growth, which delivers carbon emission reductions, better communities and environmental gains, as well as distributing growth more equitably across society, where everyone has a stake in that growth.

Now, what I don't want is a Government that stands by on the sidelines as a steel company goes to the wall; a Government that fails to invest in full electrification of rail in Wales, or in rail in Wales per se; that fails to recognise and invest in the potential tidal technology; that puts obstacles in the way of public or not-for-profit ownership of rail or water companies or other utilities that provide a public good—and to see a devastating indictment of a laissez-faire approach to the economy.

Just witness today the news of the liquidation of British Steel, which they've linked, by the way, directly to the dampening effect of Brexit uncertainty and the way in which, again, the UK Government has failed to step up and defend these jobs to the hilt. And I would say compare that to the way in which Welsh Government worked, and continues to work, diligently with the unions, the workforce, the owners of Tata Steel to make it clear that Welsh Government is on the side of jobs and employment, keeping a steel industry in Wales that continues to invest not just in jobs and the community, but in energy and carbon reduction and wider innovation. That's why I support the Government amendment today. I have some sympathy with some of the Plaid Cymru amendments too, but I'd urge colleagues to oppose the motion in the name of the Conservative Party.

And in direct response to some of Mark's comments, for a party that has repeatedly, continuously overlooked the interests of Wales, and that presided over traumatic structural damage to the industry, the economy, the communities of south Wales in the 1980s, that did throw friends of mine onto the scrapheap, that then, and now, repeatedly fails to apologise for the intergenerational damage this caused—the dole queues that lengthened, the sick list explosion, the depressions of wages and loss of highly skilled jobs, the deeply embedded poverty and crushed hopes of decades—. And add to that the drag of austerity funding, which was a political choice, Mark, not a necessity. Despite relentless Conservative spin, it was nothing to do with Labour mismanagement and all to do with a global crash beginning in the US. Add to that the repeated failure, as I've mentioned, of the UK Government to step up to its responsibility to Wales. The damage to Wales through Conservative underinvestment and disinvestment and wider damage to Wales is well and truly established in the Welsh psyche, and rightly so.

But let me say, 20 years on from the establishment of the National Assembly, which Rhun referred to, we rightly have to acknowledge that we need to do more. And my key point to Labour colleagues in Government is that this all has to be about delivery, delivery, delivery—relentlessly. We have the grand plans in place, we have the right strategies in place—we will need to tweak and adjust them as we go—but this is now really about delivery. It's driving hard on some of the existing policies but modifying others. I don't have time to be comprehensive, but let me list a few areas. Inclusive growth set out in the economic action plan needs to be, for my communities, twofold. We need investment at scale and pace in the public transport improvements in road and rail that are promised. And if more money should become available, shove it into public transport and extend the bus trials, for example, so that people can get to the jobs in Bridgend and Swansea and Llantrisant and Cardiff and along the M4 corridor.

Secondly, inclusive growth means delivering these jobs closer to home, so that does mean releasing the potential sites, like the Cosi/Revlon site in Maesteg, which has been lying dormant for years. And it means significant investment and support for the growing, I have to say, success story of the micro and small business sector within the Valleys—the Llynfi, the Garw, the Ogmore—and putting public money through the new economic contract into supporting local procurement right across the piste from builders to food producers, to child and adult care co-operatives and much more. It means the Development Bank of Wales targeting hard these geographic areas to boost and grow indigenous businesses, as Suzy mentioned, which make those local jobs stick and they boost local job generations. And it means working with these small and medium-sized businesses, not just the usual names, to deliver export as well as local markets.

And my final point—because I can see I'm in the red zone, Deputy Llywydd—it means stepping up what we plan to do with the Valleys regional park and making it of national significance so that we drive tourism and visitor and job creation through that nationally significant park in that area into those valleys. So, that would be my request: it's not new plans, it's not grand stuff; it's actually delivery, delivery, delivery to transform our communities.