James Evans, in his exchanges with Hefin David, and in his original contribution, posed the question: why didn't the Labour Government of the late 1990s rip up the fragmented system? I think what they did was a genuine attempt to use a partnership approach with operators to develop a different way of doing it. But I think we can say that partnership approach hasn't worked. We can see now in Manchester, four years on from bringing in a partnership franchise system, they're still not able to get it off the ground.

So, I think it's entirely right for us to say that different approaches have been tried to achieve a shared objective, and we are learning all the time about what works and what doesn't work. And, obviously, there is an interest as well in the privatised commercial sector in scuppering some of these plans—let's be clear about that. Legal actions are often brought by private operators against attempts to do this. There's often lobbying and various schemes are concocted to suggest that franchising properly isn't needed as partnerships can work, and I don't think that is the approach we should be following. That's what we're doing in this Government that is different from what's come before: looking at a continental model of a supervisory board rather than a local partnership board, an all-Wales approach, with TfW at its centre, but genuinely working through the different parts of local government, the county council level, the corporate joint committee level, the Welsh Government and TfW, to try between us to come up with a system that's going to work, that will allow franchising on a whole-area basis. Because the current privatised system really is the root of the problem, and that's where I agree with the amendment. Obviously, Government Ministers traditionally, in these debates, abstain on the motions, because they are backbench motions, and we'll continue that tradition today. But we certainly support the spirit of what's being argued this afternoon, and we need to move to a more planned and coherent basis.

Now, as Carolyn Thomas said in her very powerful contribution, I thought, rural bus services are rarely money makers, she said, but they are a lifeline. And that is absolutely right. And she quoted an example of an operator pulling out of a route and then demanding a subsidy 10 times greater than had previously been the case, and that just goes to show how the system is gamed by commercial operators, and that's what happens in a market, isn't it? And that's not to criticise the individual operators; that is what the market is set up to do. But, as Hefin David said in his well-made contribution, there is clear market failure, because the market is not serving the public interest. So, what we often see is operators competing for a small number of lucrative routes and then not running socially necessary routes.

Now, there was a time when there was sufficient public funding to be able to offer subsidies for these socially necessary routes, but, after 10 years of austerity, that discretionary funding simply isn't there. And often, I think—. We've seen Bridgend County Borough Council, where now commercial services only run; there is no funding available for subsidising routes, and that's been reflected in the nature of the bus network now that remains in that area. We don't want to see that. We want to see, as we can see in many functioning public transport systems across our near neighbours, a regular, reliable bus service. I note what Sam Kurtz said about the example of a part-time worker trying to get back from a late shift from Tenby where the system currently isn't good enough. We need it to be reliable, we need it to be regular, and we need it to be affordable. And do you know what? It's absolutely doable. Where there's a will, there's a way. This isn't too complicated to do; it's just we haven't been willing to spend the money necessary, or put the right regulatory structure in place in order for it to happen, and that's what we want to do. And this is where, I think, the particular focus of rural areas comes in, because much of what we've described applies to all parts of Wales.

In rural areas, there's an extra set of challenges. Now, you can have a perfectly functioning public transport system in rural areas. If you look at rural Germany or rural Switzerland, which are just as sparsely, if not more sparsely, populated as parts of rural Wales, they have villages there, small villages, with a regular hourly service, because that's what they've prioritised to do, and that's what they've done in their franchised systems, where they use profit-making services in towns to cross-subsidise loss-making services in rural areas, recognising there's a social need here.

The case, I think, for a proper bus system is as much about social justice as it is about tackling climate change. And I feel passionately about that, as, indeed, do Members right across the divide. So, let's work together to come up with something that's going to stand the test of time. So, we'll be bringing forward a White Paper, and, as I say, we are genuinely consulting with local authorities at the moment, and, when that is introduced to the Senedd, let's work together on a cross-party basis to see if we can strengthen it and make sure it is fit for purpose. And I will certainly promise to be in listening mode to work with you to see if it can be made even stronger. So, I can assure Members that we are taking it seriously, we are treating it urgently, but we want to get it right.

Now, Natasha Asghar made the argument that there's not enough funding for buses, and it's certainly true that even though we put in a significant amount of money—. In the last 15 months, we've prioritised more than £108 million to support the bus industry through COVID. As Hefin and Jack Sargeant rightly pointed out, were it not for that funding, the bus industry would have gone to the wall. That's on top of the £90 million we already spend annually in bus services provision, but that isn't enough to have the sort of bus service we want to see and that is seen on the continent. That is one of the reasons why we brought in the road review. And I realise not all Members have supported that, but the reason for doing that is we want to free up funding to put investment, to prioritise investment, in public transport. And, as I say gently, if I might, to Members across the Chamber, it is no good supporting high-level commitments to climate change if you're not prepared to follow through the necessary actions to make those commitments a reality. Shifting money away from road building towards better public transport is an absolute must if all the sentiments we've heard in this debate today are going to be translated into a properly functioning bus system. So, I hope Members will reflect on that.

Natasha Asghar said it's been seven months since the road review and we can't sit around. Well, she may be sitting around, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I'm certainly not and the board of the roads review panel certainly are not, because they are meeting regularly and they're taking the task intensely. They're about to publish an interim report and a full report by the summer, so they are working at pace.

Peter Fox made the point about a joined-up approach to bus services, and I was pleased to meet with Councillor Richard John, the leader of Monmouthshire, on Monday to talk about the particular plight of Monmouthshire, which is not well served by public transport—his successor—to understand the concerns that they have. And I do think—. I agree with his challenge that regional transport plans through the corporate joint committees have got a vital role to play in making the franchising system work.

I do believe, Dirprwy Lywydd, I've come to the end of my time, but I just want to repeat my thanks to all Members for agreeing on what the problem is. Now I think the challenge for us all is to come together to figure out the solution. Diolch.