So, I do think we need to look afresh at our approach. We are going to be continuing to work closely with local government and with the police to work through the practicalities of this, and the pilots that John Griffiths asked about will be developed with them in a range of different settings. So, Russell George, we will definitely want one of those to be in a rural setting. The geographical information system, the satellite mapping that we're using to try and suggest what roads might be 20 and what might be 30 will, of course, apply to rural as well as to urban settings. Russell raised a series of technical questions that I will write to him on to make sure that we do justice to each of them. But, of course, there will be robust guidance, which we'll be working out as a result of the pilots with the WLGA and the police.

He raised a legal question about the definition of restricted roads when road lighting was not present and I'll need to check the legal position on that. But the example of Ceredigion, for example, I understand that they are zones by order; they can, of course, be repealed where they are required. And that's the point of this approach: it's a permissive approach, working with local authorities and what communities tell us they want to do in their settings. So, if, as John Griffiths mentioned and Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned, in rural areas, there's a nuance there that suggests a different approach, we hope to work with local authorities to give them the discretion to respond to the circumstances that they find. This is not a sledgehammer; this is a strategic move but with a degree of discretion at the level of detail to make sure that we apply it in a way that is sensible.

Siân Gwenllian said at the start about the way that GoSafe currently targets resources on areas with high levels of killed and seriously injured, and Janet Finch-Saunders mentioned what she called the 'utter madness' of looking at casualties rather than near misses. And I think that is one of the problems with the current approach, but if we turn it on its head and we set 20 mph as a default, the role of GoSafe and the police then becomes different. And John Griffiths is right: this will, in time, become self-enforcing. But clearly, this is going to take time. This is a behaviour change project, cultural change, over time.

But the figures are stark and the figures and clear: the risk of being killed is almost five times higher in collisions between a car and a pedestrian at 30 mph, compared to the same type of collisions at 20 mph—five times higher. The point where a car is going faster—. At the point at which a car doing 20 mph will have come to a stop, a car doing 30 mph will still have been doing 24 mph. And this evidence is cited in the report, so I don't think we can seriously say that there is weak evidence on this or that we haven't fully made the case for the need for this type of intervention.

There were examples cited of Bath and Somerset where fatalities increased and others where the air quality impact was not certain, but of course these are different approaches, these are zones. And this is not a 20 mph zone approach; this is a default speed limit, this is a whole area. So, the standard will be 20 mph, the exception will be 30 mph. And David Rowlands made the risible point that because cars now have better braking systems, somehow we didn't need—we could overlook the fact that 800 children a year were killed or seriously injured.FootnoteLink Well, clearly, those braking systems aren't effective, David, are they? They're clearly not effective; children are dying, they're dying and we need to stop it, and this is a way of stopping it. And I think the mealy-mouthed comments about 20 mph being a ridiculously low limit, I think says more about the culture war effort he's trying to engender than it does about the evidence. Jenny Rathbone made the point that seatbelts were said to be an affront to liberty and smoking in people's faces was thought to be a right, and now nobody would, indeed, say that.

I'm hoping I've worked my way through the majority of the points that were raised, Llywydd. If I failed to do so, I will write to Members. This is a significant change. We're not rushing it. We've been criticised for taking too long to go about it; we want to work through the details and get it right. The prize for getting it right is high, and I welcome the challenge from Members, and I welcome that as a continued conversation, so, together, we can satisfy ourselves that this is the right thing to do. And I think of all the things that each of us will have achieved in politics, if we get this right, it'll be a significant legacy for our Senedd. Diolch, Llywydd.