Item 11 is next, and that's the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Wales) Order 2022. I call on the Minister for Climate Change to move the motion—Julie James.

Motion NDM8054 Lesley Griffiths

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5:

1. Approves that the draft The Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Wales) Order 2022 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 21 June 2022.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. Section 81(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that

'It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.'

Subject to provisions of section 82 and 84(3) of the Act,

'a road is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act if (a) in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart.'

Section 81(2) of the Act enables the national authority, being the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, pursuant to section 142(1) of the Act, by Order, to increase or reduce the rate of speed fixed by section 81(1), either as originally enacted or as varied under that subsection. Section 81(3)(aa) of the Act provides that such an Order,

'if made by the Welsh Ministers, is to be made by statutory instrument and approved by a resolution of Senedd Cymru.'

Before the Welsh Ministers make an Order under section 81(2) of the Act, they are required by section 81(5) of the Act to consult with the Secretary of State, which has been done. Once the Order comes into force on 17 September 2023, as intended, the general speed limit for restricted roads will reduce from 30 mph to 20 mph in relation to Wales. The provisions of the Act are not otherwise amended by the Order.

The traffic authority for our highway, the Welsh Ministers in relation to trunk roads and special roads and the relevant county or county borough council in relation to other roads, will therefore retain the power under section 82(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to direct

'that a road which is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of this Act shall cease to be a restricted road for those purposes'  with the result that a general speed limit for restricted roads would not apply to such a road. In addition, while an Order under section 81(a) of the Act imposing a speed limit on a road is in force, that road shall not be a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Act, meaning that the speed limit imposed by that Order would apply in any such circumstances. Subject to these provisions, the default speed limit for a restricted road in Wales will reduce from 30 mph to 20 mph.

The Order seeks to address the issues of road safety and the effects from vehicles and roads on the environment and communities. It seeks to improve road safety, encourage a shift to more active forms of travel, and improve the local economy and environment in Welsh communities. The delay in the coming into force of the Order is intended to enable traffic authorities to prepare for the new legislation, to publicise the proposals and to enable appropriate amendments to be made to traffic signs legislation. The proposal to introduce a slower speed limit also aligns with Wales's well-being goals and other strategic priorities, such as improving air quality and carbon reduction.

There is overwhelming evidence that lower speeds results in fewer collisions and a reduced severity of injuries, and consistent evidence that casualties are reduced when 20 mph limits are introduced. On average, 80 people a year die on Welsh roads, 80 families whose lives will never be the same again. Just published are the 2021 accident statistics, and during this year, over half of all road accidents—53 per cent—occurred on 30 mph roads. Pedestrians are five times more likely to be killed at 30 mph compared to 20 mph, and 52 per cent of all casualties were killed on 30 mph roads during 2019. Moving to a—[Interruption.] Yes, sure.

I also looked at those police statistics. Did you notice that 3 per cent of the accidents occur on 20 mph roads, but they only account for 2.5 per cent of roads in Wales? So, actually, the accident rate is higher by 0.5 per cent and pretty much aligned with the accident rate on 30 mph roads.

There are some issues around how you use statistics, obviously, Mark, but actually, if you use the mileage of the road compared to that, that doesn't entirely hold.

The evidence shows us that moving to a national 20 mph speed limit for restricted roads would make them safer, save lives and encourage more of us to walk and cycle. Research has shown that public opinion will support the change, and, where a 20 mph speed limit has been implemented, support has grown. There is also evidence that 20 mph limits lead to more walking and cycling, which is a priority for the Welsh Government. Introducing a slower speed limit where people live will help us all to make walking and cycling the most natural way of getting around for shorter distances and weaning ourselves away from relying on private cars. More walking and cycling along with slower traffic speeds will produce more cohesive and safe communities for people to live, work and socialise and is therefore beneficial for people's mental as well as their physical health.

This is not a blanket 20 mph change, and we are working closely with local authorities to identify potential roads where speed limits will be reduced to 20 mph and those that should remain at 30 mph. The presumption to a default residential speed limit of 20 mph is a programme for government commitment.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

I think that's a—. I'm sorry, I'm sure you want to get on with things, but I think that's a really important—[Laughter.] It was the way she was looking at me then. I think that's a really important point that residents are listened to, and I give these proposals a very cautious welcome. I think, on the whole, residents in Caerphilly, in certain areas like Rudry, Bargoed and Castle View, will welcome them. But residents must be listened to, and if you could confirm that these proposals will still give residents the opportunity to be heard where they feel 20 mph is not appropriate for particular roads.

Yes, indeed; I'll get on to that shortly. [Laughter.]

The 20 mph programme supports 'Llwybr Newydd', the Wales transport strategy, by making it easier and safer for people to walk and cycle. The process that local authorities have to go through to bring in lower limits, the traffic regulation Orders, is slow, complex and expensive. Despite millions of pounds invested previously, only around 2.5 per cent of the road network is currently subject to a 20 mph speed limit. We estimate that this will rise to 35 per cent when the policy is implemented. Rather than introducing it street by street, authority by authority, we are being bold and choosing the smarter way, to introduce it for everyone at the same time. This change in the default speed limit by way of legislation offers a consistent approach across Wales to bring it in on restricted roads in Wales.

Not all restricted roads are deemed to be suitable to be reduced to 20 mph and an exceptions process developed can be used by highway authorities as guidance to assist them to identify which roads or stretches of road should remain at 30 mph. We are continuing to evolve these exceptions collaboratively as we move through the process by working with local authorities. We've refined the original proposal from the taskforce group for the first phase settlements, and we are now working with pilot areas to review their experience before the next iteration of the guidance in advance of the national roll-out. But, ultimately, local knowledge will be key, and local residents will have a say, of course, in how their street should be.

The future of our towns and cities depends on our ability to move around sustainably and on solutions that have a positive impact on public health, the environment and communities. That is why, Llywydd, we will use the principle that walking, cycling and active travel must remain the best options for short urban journeys, and a 20 mph default speed limit will help achieve this. The introduction of a national 20 mph speed limit would be an important and far-reaching policy. If passed, Wales would be the first country in the UK to introduce the change.

We are asking you all to be part of this change and make our communities understand the wider benefits of 20 mph. This change is a generational one and will need time to embed. It will need to be accompanied by an important communication and marketing campaign and behaviour change initiatives. Achieving behavioural change is challenging, but Wales has previously shown that we can do it successfully with policies such as organ donation, the banning of smoking in public places and limiting the use of plastic bags. It does, however, require a collaborative effort between agencies, local authorities and by communities. We need to bring speeds down so that lower limits and slower driving are normalised. Diolch.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Far from the weighty policy matters here, we've got some technical and merits points to raise in terms of making Welsh law accessible first. The Order is made in exercise of the power in section 81(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Article 2(2) of the Order provides that the reference in section 81(1) of the Act to '30 miles per hour' is to be interpreted as a reference to '20 miles per hour'. So, as such, when the Order comes into force, it will be necessary for a person to locate both the Act and the Order in order to understand the default speed limit on restricted roads in Wales. This is to do with accessibility of the law. We asked the Welsh Government whether it had considered using the power in section 81(2) to instead make a textual amendment to the speed limit in section 81(1), which would assist in making Welsh law in this area as accessible as possible to road users.

In its response, the Welsh Government has said it accepts the need to make Welsh law as accessible as possible, however the drafting approach has been driven by vires issues. We were told that the wording of the power in section 81 is not explicit as to whether textual modification of the rate of speed is authorised. Further, there is no express ancillary power to make consequential changes to the section to deal with differentiation in the rate of speed across Wales, Scotland and England. So, the Welsh Government considers that if the UK Parliament had intended for there to be such ancillary powers, it could have included them at any of the times in recent years where amendments have been made to section 81 of the 1984 Act, including via the Wales Act 2017.

To make the textual modification approach viable at a practical level, the Welsh Government believes that the Welsh, Scottish and UK Governments would need to agree on the approach and keep each other informed of any changes when they occur, which the Welsh Government considers would be difficult to achieve in practice. Given that the recently agreed new inter-governmental relations structures are intended to provide for better inter-governmental working, we would be grateful for further clarity on this point, as to why this couldn't work. Now, this is particularly important given that in response to our merits point, the second merits point we raised, the Welsh Government confirmed the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency have been fully briefed about the Welsh Government plans, and plans are in place for driving test requirements and the printed highway code to be amended accordingly.

Our third merits point notes that no formal justice impact assessment has been undertaken for this Order. The justification for this is set out in the regulatory impact assessment, which concludes that there will only be a slight impact on the criminal justice system. As our report highlights, the assessment states that a number of factors have influenced the Welsh Government's conclusions, and the Welsh Government has confirmed to us that it has taken into account the fact that there are further eligibility requirements for speed awareness courses other than simply recorded speed, and that there are differences between a lowered speed limit put in place in a defined pilot area and a national default speed limit that might have an impact on the number and the type of speeding offences committed.

Just swapping hats for a moment, Llywydd, from Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and putting on my hat as chair of the CPG on active travel, the cross-party group on active travel, can I just note the overriding support from members of that group, including Living Streets, Sustrans Cymru, 20's Plenty for Us, Ramblers Cymru, Transport Action Network and many, many others who see this as a way, using the exceptions that have been outlined as well, to actually make sure that we have cleaner, less congested, less polluted, more civilised streets?

Let me say from the outset to everyone here that I am 100 per cent in favour of taking action to improve road safety here in Wales. The Welsh Conservative group really have no problem in seeing reduced speed limits on roads where there is large pedestrian activity, such as outside busy places of worship, schools, playgrounds and high streets where cars are permitted. As Edmund King, the president of the AA, said,

'20 mph limits work best where they’re needed—outside schools or hospitals, or places where other vulnerable road users may be encountered.'

End of quote. However, I alongside the Welsh Conservatives, strongly believe that the speed limit should remain at 30 mph here in Wales. It is evident from the sheer number of letters and e-mails that I and my colleagues have been inundated with over the past few weeks that the trialling of the 20 mph speed restrictions is causing major problems on busy commuter roads, and is undeniably a problem faced by communities all across Wales. From Buckley and Mold in the north to Caldicot and Abergavenny in the south, people have contacted me in their droves to express their concerns. The 20 mph speed limit has caused traffic congestion, frustration for drivers, and ill feeling amongst residents—quite the opposite of what the intentions are behind this policy. 

The Department for Transport published a report on 20 mph speed limits in 2018. They concluded that the 20 mph speed zones have made no impact on road safety, and drivers have only reduced their speed by 0.7 mph in these zones. Also, speed was not the most common factor involved in road accidents. The biggest contributing factor to accidents was, in fact, a failure to observe on the part of both motorists and pedestrians. There is also the potential additional hazard that drivers that are frustrated by traffic congestion and slow speeds will exceed limits and drive without due care as soon as they leave these 20 mph zones.

Sustrans have said that a default 20 mph speed limit could save around six lives per year, but we can do more. Let me just tell you how: it's a fact that in Wales we have the highest percentage of drink-drive casualties in Britain, according to Department for Transport figures. Official figures show that drink driving rose from 110 to 130 in Wales from 2019 to 2022. Personally, I find it very hard to take on board any stats during the COVID lockdown because it's not a true representation of what our roads have actually looked like over the years. So, Minister, as much as I believe each life is important, you don't have to be a mathematical genius to see how many lives would be saved if the Welsh Government provided more funding, more resources and more guidance to support and combat drink driving. The UK Government has invested nearly £20 million into the THINK! drink-drive campaign since 2007, helping to save almost 1,000 lives. Why not invest some of that money, say by freezing the road improvement programme, into tackling this problem?

I'd really like to see how exactly the Welsh Government will enforce this blanket 20 mph speed limit once it's in place. Even the taskforce group's report confirms that the implementation of the default 20 mph speed limit will be complex, expensive and require a substantial ongoing commitment for policing as well as the new costs of road signage and speed cameras. Now, this particular 20 mph zone, per say, will be a nightmare for the police and road safety organisations to enforce. While we're on the subject of cost, how much money will the Welsh Government give to local authorities to implement this programme? I don't understand how the councils couldn't have just had their own discretion to introduce them where they're essentially needed, and ultimately we as a Government could have just supported them and encouraged them in any way that we could have to basically put them where they're the most needed. You mentioned exceptional circumstances, Minister. Why couldn't we have had exceptional circumstances for the 20 mph speed limit, as opposed to having it in place when the 30 miles is going down?

Now, Minister, what consideration, I'd like to know, has been given to the effect of longer journey times on public transport passengers and businesses? Whether those people are trying to get to work or parents trying to pick up their children from schools, or even driving instructors who've contacted me in their droves, to tourists visiting Wales, ultimately, their journey times are going to be longer. So, rather than encouraging more people to get out of their cars and use the bus, this policy is going to have the opposite effect, as we just don't have a strong public transport infrastructure here in Wales yet. We have rightly heard a great deal in this Senedd about the cost-of-living crisis from Members all across the board. None of us can deny that it's worrying to all of us. The Welsh Government has projected the cost of this roll-out of 20 mph all across Wales is going to be £32.5 million. Frankly, I can think of a multitude of ways and better things to spend taxpayers' money on here in Wales than this. Businesses that rely on road haulage and delivery vans, already badly hit by the increase in the cost of fuel, face further unnecessary expense due to this Welsh Government policy.

Are you taking an intervention from—?

No, not at this moment.

That's okay.

And I really fail to see how air quality will be improved by forcing higher fuel consumption, thereby creating more emissions. Vehicles today are designed for maximum efficiency and fuel economy at particular speeds, and it will not benefit the environment if cars are stuck on gridlocked roads pumping out pollution day after day.

Presiding Officer, more people die on roads from drink driving, so I'd be 100 per cent behind the Welsh Government delivering an effective plan to discourage people from doing so and ultimately stop driving recklessly once and for all. There is a long-standing suspicion that the Deputy Minister's pilot scheme was insincere and just a simple smokescreen for plans that were already a done deal. How can anyone be certain that the results of these scheme are even accurate when they were conducted during lockdown?

I urge the Welsh Government today and everybody here who's going to be casting their vote to listen to the concerns of local residents and businesses, owners of various properties as well those who are on the roads consistently before permanently imposing these damaging and counterproductive 20 mph limits on communities across Wales and think long and hard. Twenty is not plenty. Minister, if you're really serious about road safety, then bring in the 20 mph in areas that they are really needed and please spend the money on deterring drink drivers off our roads once and for all. Thank you.

I welcome these plans. Introducing speed limits of 20 mph on these roads that we're talking about will make our communities safer and will make them cleaner and healthier places to live. This will also save lives. Every life saved is more important than anything that we can measure or evaluate. Avoiding any bereavement is a great thing and a good thing.

These measures will also help us reduce the dominant role of cars in our lives and our communities, our streets will be more attractive, and the atmosphere will be safer for bikes and pedestrians, never mind people with disabilities and young children. And these measures will certainly help our environment. Less fuel will be used, there will be less congestion on the streets, and this will improve levels of air pollution and noise pollution.

Having said this, there are some concerns that have been mentioned about the fact that a blanket approach is being used. There are places that currently have speed limits of 30 mph that are not residential areas, such as a road that connects housing estates or those on the outskirts of villages and towns. I would like to know more about the exceptions that can be made for valid reasons and also about the resources that will be available to make those exceptions, while adhering closely to this principle of reducing speed in the places where people live and children play. Some communities on trunk roads are concerned that they would not be captured under this protection, such as those along the A470 or the A487. Minister, they need the same level of safety. This is true across Wales. Could you please provide us with information in response to this concern?

Now, I know that the Institute for Welsh Affairs proposes that the new restrictions, as we have heard already, will reduce regional inequalities and will improve inclusion in communities. Could you give you more information on this, please? I've heard from constituents in Monmouth, where the new rules have been in place for some time, and I would like to know whether lessons can be learned from that pilot. Some drivers are still getting used to the new limit; is it possible for some time to be given before penalties are introduced in order to help people become accustomed to this? Is it possible for the signs to be clear? In some places in Monmouth there are signs that contradict each other on the same road—some signs say 20 mph and others say 30 mph still.

Finally, Minister, when you respond, could you say what steps you would take to encourage ordinary people to understand why this change is being introduced? I know when you talked earlier you talked about behaviour change, and how important that is so that people feel that this is something that is happening for them rather than something that is just happening to them. I would appreciate hearing more from you about that. As I said, some concerns, but generally, of course, we do welcome this greatly. Thank you. 

As the Minister will be aware, I represent the community of Buckley that's taken part in the pilot scheme for these proposed changes, and what's important to me, Minister, is that we do learn the lessons from this trial. It's critical that we learn lessons from Buckley and the other areas across Wales. But it has to be about a mature relationship between local authorities, who understand their local communities and the communities they serve—in this particular case, Flintshire County Council—and the Welsh Government. 

I must say, the correspondence I have received reaches far further than just Buckley itself, it reaches right across the community of Alyn and Deeside, which I represent. Now, my residents have genuine concerns about many arterial roads. Many do support 20 mph on most roads, including housing estates, near schools et cetera, but they do want exemptions for those main and arterial roads, and I understand and share these concerns. I have to be frank about that. So, Minister, if we are going to make 20 mph a default position—not a blanket position, but a default position—we do need to find a way that local authorities are empowered to identify these particular roads. An example of a particular road is Liverpool Road in Buckley in my own constituency. They have those powers, they apply those exemptions, where they deem necessary. So, can you confirm clearly and on the record today here in the Chamber that local authorities will have the power to do this with, and in communication with, the local communities who have that local knowledge? Diolch yn fawr.

I'm grateful to be able to contribute in today's motion on the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Wales) Order 2022, in which Wales, of course, could become the first nation in the world to adopt the 20 mph default speed limit on residential streets. I say 'could', but I'm sure that the Labour whip is as strong as possible for all the backbenchers on that side of the Chamber as well.

I'd first like to outline my sheer disappointment, Llywydd, that today's motion has been given just 30 minutes on the order paper. For such a significant shift in the way people live their daily lives, 30 minutes, in my view, is nowhere near enough.

If you don't draw too much attention to that, I may well extend the time, you never know. 

Very generous of you, Llywydd. I will not mention it again. [Laughter.]

So, as Natasha Asghar mentioned, we certainly support letting our councils put 20 mph speed limits outside schools, hospitals and other areas, and I've certainly seen that impact on the school my daughters go to, where I've seen that safety for them outside that school, especially at busy times of the day, is important. But this blanket approach across our communities, across urban roads in Wales, without recognising the vast differences in our communities, seems to me like a knee-jerk reaction. This may work in city centres where there's good infrastructure, good public transport in place, but many of our villages and towns that are linked by 30 mph roads at the moment simply do not have that same transport system, the same connectivity, the same infrastructure—it's nothing like Cardiff, it's nothing like Swansea, Minister. These rural villages and towns are going to be suffering because of this.

As we know, the Welsh Government's currently trialling this scheme across areas in Wales, including, as the Member for Alyn and Deeside pointed out, in Buckley in north Wales, where I had the pleasure of meeting up with residents and local representatives last week. In meeting with those residents in Buckley who've had the speed trial in place there, they highlighted to me a number of issues that they believe they noted with their eyes and noted around them. They believe they see a higher level of pollution, they've observed more accidents and more delays. And they also feel that Government have not been listening to them and to their concerns through this process. And they're concerned about the level of pollution, because what they observe is cars and drivers having to drive in a lower gear, churning out more fumes. They believe they've seen more accidents, because they believe they've seen more drivers distracted with having to try and live within this new speed limit. And they've also seen some significant risks—I'll give way in just one moment, Jenny Rathbone—they've also seen significant risks in their interactions with cyclists as well, because they're now actually seeing cyclists overtaking cars, which seems a bit ridiculous. Jenny. 

As a cyclist, I agree that it is perfectly possible to go at 20 mph as a cyclist, but that is a good reason for having 20 mph for cars. Surely you understand that it will take over a year before this actually becomes the default option, and that gives us plenty of time to educate people that it is going to be a default 20 mph, except where we designate 30 mph.

I absolutely accept that logic and understand that completely, but what's happened here is that residents have not being listened to by Government in terms of the concerns that they've raised throughout this trial. As the Member has mentioned over there, it is a trial, you're right, but you'd expect the concerns and the information raised by residents would be taken into account— [Interruption.] Well, it has been brought forward today, in this motion here today. Let's move on. 

In terms of the cost, Llywydd—we're talking about £33 million, as has already been mentioned—I'm sure that that could be better spent on employing more teachers, doctors and nurses here in Wales. Along with this, there's real concern that there is going to be a massive impact on business and the economy as well, because it simply won't allow ordinary people to get on with their normal life activities at the same rate, such as getting to work, dropping the kids off at school. People will be spending more time in their car, rather than getting on with what it is they need to do. 

In addition to this, a huge concern regarding the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit is whether people will be able to abide by this and the enforcement of this as well. So, just this morning, a constituent of mine contacted me from Buckley saying the following: 'Only this morning, as I was just pulling onto Liverpool Road, I was nearly taken out by a car overtaking six other cars. Luckily, I slammed my brakes on in time, but, if traffic was coming the other way, it would have been fatal.' There is no enforcement taking place there at the moment, and my understanding is that the police capacity to put further enforcement in place will not be there. 

Another constituent wrote to me and said, and I quote, 'Drivers checking their speed constantly, not giving their full attention to road conditions, as well as impatient drivers trying to overtake will make the roads more dangerous, not less.' [Interruption.] I'm just sharing information; they don't like to hear what constituents or residents have to say. I'm sharing information that they are sharing with me. 

It's clear the Welsh Government has not properly consulted with those who have undergone this trial. It has caused real anger across many of our communities. In addition to this, it's clear, for those who have undergone the trial, it simply hasn't worked and won't work. So, in light of this, I call on all Members of the Senedd to reject today's Order, which could have a dangerous impact and is a backwards step in how we go about our daily lives in Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.  

Thank you, Minister, for this afternoon's statement. 

I would like to welcome this change very much. Yes, I have too received countless e-mails regarding this, and I have to say the majority supported this move. I understand the concerns that were raised, and I'm pleased to see that there will be dialogue between local authorities and so on where it does make sense to opt out. But the truth about it now is that people are contacting us concerned about speeding in communities and nothing can be done because there hasn't been a fatality yet. And that is often the case in these communities, that it is based on someone having to die before the speed is reduced, and that doesn't mean that there haven't been accidents or near misses et cetera.

I very much welcome this, because the truth about it is that many parents do not allow their children to walk or cycle to school at present because roads aren't safe. If we have 20 mph and people adhere to that and there's an understanding that that is 20 mph—. Because 20 mph just outside a school isn't enough. We've been talking here about it being three miles that some children have to cycle or walk to school because school buses aren't available. Therefore, we need to think about all of that surrounding area, and that includes hospitals and so on. People don't feel confident—I'm not a confident cyclist and so on—and speeding traffic is one of those issues that prohibit many people from being able to take active travel. So, I think we need to look at this in its totality.

And I do not agree to say that 20 is not plenty in these communities. You can't on the one hand say that you welcome it outside schools, outside hospitals, but not think about the infrastructure overall, and that is what's being addressed here. I think it will be far easier in terms of messaging and communication that we have this approach, because in my own community 20 mph road signs have been part of the trial here outside of a school, and there hasn't been the reduction required with speeding outside of school because it hasn't gone hand in hand with that awareness-raising campaign. It seems ludicrous that people need to be told or reminded not to speed outside of schools, but that is the reality. 

I do agree with one point raised in terms of enforcement, and that is something we do need to look at: what are the other measures that need to be in place to reduce speeding? That can often be extremely expensive, and local authorities don't have that support, and we need to think about it in terms of infrastructure, with widening pavements and so on—all of those things that support active travel, because reducing speed won't solve things where we don't have pedestrian crossings and so on, all the things that make active travel sustainable and an alternative option. 

We've had countless e-mails from communities—Jane Hutt will know well the east Aberthaw community, where speeding is a huge issue. This will make a massive difference to that community to feel that they can travel safely around their own village. We know from communities in Cardiff that have been fighting and trying to secure this that they are scared for their children in terms of routes, and the same across Rhondda Cynon Taf. So, yes, there are things that need to be worked out. Yes, we need to think about the impact of trunk roads et cetera, that could become—you know, speeding could worsen in those areas as people try and avoid the 20 mph zones. But it has to be part of that wider approach to making active travel attractive to people, to making our communities safer, and I think there's so much to welcome from 20 mph.

I think by having that messaging, having this campaign, I would hope that it is money well spent to make our communities safer for those—. Not everybody has a car either, and I think we need to remind. There's something about—. People can't afford to put petrol and diesel into their cars, even, now. We are talking about more people wanting active travel, and this will help with that. So, I am looking forward to voting in favour and supporting this, but obviously as part of that wider package that we need to look at in how we take it forward to make our communities safer. Diolch.

I'm a strong supporter of 20 mph, and I do believe it's right that we turn on its head the current position, so that instead of 30 mph being the default limit and councils having to take forward exception orders in order to put 20 mph in place, 20 mph becomes the default limit and 30 mph would be the exception. I think it's very important for road safety, as we've heard, but also very important in terms of encouraging active travel, cycling and walking, and reclaiming our streets for young children to play and for older people to feel more comfortable when they're walking around. It's part of that wider agenda, I think, to stop the motor car ruling our communities and allowing human beings more space and time to do what they want to do in their own neighbourhoods. 

And it will go hand in hand with the improvements that we will see to an integrated transport system, with much better public transport provision, which, as we all know, is such an important part of persuading motorists to get out of their vehicles with all the benefits that brings—environmental and air quality, which are so important for health and the environment. So, I think there's an awful lot in favour of this policy.

I've received a lot of e-mails, as other Members mentioned, yes, some of them raising concerns, but a lot of them very much in support. And there is a pilot that was taken forward by the Conservative administration in Monmouthshire County Council prior to the last local elections—it is now a Labour administration, of course—and that pilot has proved controversial. What I've heard from local people is lots of them do support the policy generally, but they do have concerns particularly with the bypass road that bypasses Caldicot town centre. And to the credit of the new Labour administration, they've listened to local residents, and, of course, local authorities remain the highways authorities. So, they've looked at the powers that they have and the pilot, and they are now, in fact, going to remove some of that Caldicot bypass road from the pilot, having listened to local residents' concerns. So, I think that does show that local authorities are able to act, are able to listen and are able to respond to concerns.

With all that in the background, I think many, many people, when this policy is rolled out right across Wales, will see the advantages and will be supportive, and the more that time goes on, the stronger that support will be. I look forward to communities reclaiming their streets for active travel, for play, for comfort and amenity. 

I wasn't going to take part in this debate—

Okay—[Inaudible.]—[Laughter.]

—but having listened to the arguments, I just wanted to make a short contribution. Look, I've been a Member of this Senedd for 15 years, and over those 15 years I've campaigned for 20 mph zones in some parts of my constituency. We've been successful in securing some of them, and the Minister's quite right: it takes too long to secure them. But it takes too long because of guidance from the Welsh Government. There are things that you can do in order to remove the barriers without having to change the default speed limit in all built-up areas to 20 mph.

I've seen the impact that it can have on local communities when there is a speed limit reduction; it can give people confidence to be able to be more active in the way that they travel, and I agree that that's something that we need to try and build in. But I think that there are smarter things that we can do with the resources that the Welsh Government is seeking to apply here in order to introduce this new default speed limit.

Will you take an intervention?

I'll happily take one.

You'll understand this reference. I was a bit of a doubting Thomas when it came to this policy. I've changed my mind completely. Stopping when you're driving 30 mph—six car lengths; stopping at 20 mph is three car lengths. As a father of a 20-month-old, and you'd know this, with several children of your own—children run. You can hold them as much as you like, but they run, and they run into traffic. It's far safer—it is far safer, Darren—and you'll agree with this: when the limit goes down, people's mentality changes. We saw that with drink driving. In a generation, people's mentality on drink driving changed. [Interruption.] Seatbelts are another example. We need to change our mentality on speed, because children walk across all pavements in inner city areas, not just in front of schools and hospitals.

That's right, and, of course, you could reduce the speed limit to 15 mph or 10 mph and even have a shorter stopping limit. I don't think it's necessarily the fact that this is a 20 mph proposal that is the issue, because, as I say, I've supported 20 mph in certain places. It's about whether this is the right use of resources in order to improve safety on our roads and in order to get people to be more active.

Now, we know that we need more investment in cycle routes, for example, and shared active travel routes in our communities. We know also that there is a place for smart speed limits, where they change at certain points of the day, whether that's pick-up and drop-off time outside schools, which we have in some parts of Wales, with a 20 mph zone that kicks in for a short time and then it zips back up to 30 mph, or even seasonal speed limits. You know, in busy places where you have lots of tourists in the summer, it's sometimes more appropriate to reduce the speed limit for the whole of the tourist season—Easter and summer and whatnot.

But I'm not sure that this is the right approach. I'm going to be voting against it. As I say, I've supported these things where appropriate in places in my constituency, and I still have some battles on my hands. But what I would plead with you to do, Minister, and it would cost you a fraction of the £30 million-odd that you want to throw at this particular scheme, is use some of that money instead to simply change the guidance to remove those barriers so that when an issue is identified—. And you don't have to have, actually, a fatality in order to reduce the speed limit to 20 mph; we didn't have fatalities in my own constituency and we managed to do it, so I'm not sure why you're being given that advice, Heledd Fychan, by the local authorities in your region. But if you remove those barriers, if you make it a shorter timescale process, where everybody agrees that a 20 mph limit is appropriate, then we can get on and we can introduce these things.

I think what you're going to have is lots of people wanting to make lots of exceptions to this new 20 mph default, and that's going to gum everything up so that we're not getting the proper strategic approach to our roads and highways. It's going to take those people away from doing the active travel stuff that we also want them to be working on—developing the new cycle routes, putting in the pedestrian crossings where we need them putting in, addressing the other problems in our road and transport systems—taking them away from encouraging people to make that modal shift to other forms of transport rather than the car, and I think it will have many unintended consequences.

Learn from these pilots. People have raised concerns in the pilot areas. I appreciate that some people will just never want to see a 20 mph zone—that's their issue. I'm not in that camp, okay? But you have to listen to people when they raise concerns, and in these pilot areas there have been many concerns that have been raised. So, we shouldn't just launch into this. We should go in with our eyes fully open. There will be unintended consequences if we take this decision today, so I would urge everybody just to think carefully. I agree we need to kill speeds. We need to enforce better against current speed limits, but this isn't the right approach, Minister.

On reading the report, I saw that initially 80 per cent of people were in favour of 20 mph, but last year's consultation indicated that there were mixed results with 47 per cent in favour then. Desktop exceptions became an issue when delivered in reality, following the pilots conducted in Buckley in Flintshire, and officers were not permitted to do local exceptions to remove key arterial routes, as they did not fit the Welsh Government template. I understand there needs to be the national guidance for consistency, but council officers need to have permitted flexibility for local decision making, and I hope, listening to the discussions, that as they are the highway authority that will happen and will override. So, I'm asking the Minister if, following the pilot, whether any changes have been made to the exceptions criteria template that will allow councils to make the local decision rather than the Welsh Government, so that contentious arterial roads like Liverpool Road in Buckley can be made back up to 30 mph. Thank you.

The Minister for Climate Change to reply. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I start by thanking the legislation and justice committee for their input into this set of regulations? Just to answer a couple of the questions that were raised by Huw in his role as Chair, we were anxious to avoid any unnecessary challenge to the regulations, so the vires point has quite a lot of weight with us. And then in terms of the impact on enforcement and the criminal justice system, enforcement will be undertaken by GoSafe, the police, Community Speedwatch and enforcement cameras. The fire and rescue services will be involved, or have been involved, in developing an education programme, so those breaking the speed limit but not excessively can be offered a course if they don't want to take a fine, so very similar to now. Obviously, motorists who have a total disregard for the speed limit will be fined in the usual way and will end up in court, but we don't think there is therefore a huge impact on the criminal justice system, and we think it will diminish over time in any event. So, just to answer those points.

Turning to the contributions, in particular, from Natasha Asghar and people on the Tory benches, I mean, what can I say? Same old Tories. You agree with it in principle, but this particular thing you don't want to do. You agree with climate change in principle, but this particular thing you don't want to do. You agree with health in principle, but this particular thing you don't want to do. You never want to do anything specific. You want to agree it in principle, but never actually take any action at all, and it's just not good enough.

You talk to me about the waste of resources. Where were you when the Westminster Government took millions of pounds off this Government to buy arms for Ukraine? A worthy cause, but a wholly reserved matter. I don't remember a chorus of complaints from the Tory benches about the use of resources then. One of your own Members told me, in this Chamber, that it wasn't his job to worry about resources—a hilarious contribution to that debate. I'll take no lessons from you about the use of resources; you have no idea what you're talking about. That is an absolute nonsense, and you know it.

Darren Millar, I am very distressed at you. You have been a proponent of this all your life. Sam Rowlands had the temerity to say that my backbenchers are following a strict whip. I have to tell you they are not. They are wholly in favour of this. You, Darren Millar, I'm not so sure about you. We'll maybe have to have a conversation about that afterwards. But the idea that this is a strict whip is just not on. I'm not having it. That is just absolute nonsense.

So, I'll just reiterate the points that I was making earlier. On average, 80 people a year—80 people a year—die on Welsh roads; 80 families whose lives will never be the same again. Eighty. Moving to a national 20 mph speed limit for residential roads makes them safer. It saves lives; it stops the ruination of those families' lives and I have to say, not just the families of those people are killed, but the drivers themselves, whose lives are often ruined as well. So, this will save lives, it will make our communities safer, it will encourage more of us to walk and cycle and reclaim the streets for our children.

We're under no illusions that this is a huge behaviour change, and I am old enough to remember the change to seat belts, as it happens. I remember the clamour of indignation about the stopping of liberties and how appalling it was that you had to do that; you couldn't put eight kids in the back seat and all the rest of it. None of us would dream of doing that now; we all clip our seat belts on because we know it saves our lives and it saves the lives of other people who are road users. This will be just the same; it is a generational change. It looks difficult now. By the time my granddaughter who's rising two is my age, it will be so normal that nobody will ever think about it.

And this isn't a blanket change. The difference between a blanket change and a default is really, really important, and I know that you know that. You're just using that as a platform. So, it's the default. There is a system of exceptions that we will work on with our local authorities to make sure that they have the resource and the evidence to make the exceptions count, and that the local authority takes into account the views of its councillors and its local residents, but it has an evidence base for that, which will allow us to have the right speed limit for the right road with a default of 20 mph. So, the assumption of 20 mph and then a default. Yes, Darren.

Will you take an intervention? So, as I said earlier, one of the problems with the current system where they can make the change to 20 mph is the length of time that that takes. If you're going to introduce this change—and I urge you not to—but if you are going to introduce this change and you manage to get the votes to do so today, will you assure us that you will have a compact, short timescale process to be able to allow these exceptions, where there may need to be an exception for 30 mph or 40 mph or whatever it might be, in those places where it is appropriate?

Indeed, absolutely. So, there will be an exceptions process. The exceptions process—. I have to correct my colleague Carolyn Thomas: the exceptions process is not in the gift of the Welsh Government. The exceptions process has been developed by a group working with us and our local authorities to work out the most efficient way of doing the exceptions process, to take into account what is the evidential base needed, what are the views of the local people and the local councillors, and how that authority can make the ruling without the threat of judicial review and challenge of course—that it has the right evidential base—and so that we don't have wildly differing exceptions criteria across Wales. But in the end, it will be the local authority as the transport authority that makes that process.

So, I'm not standing here to make any apology for making roads in Wales safer. Pedestrians are five times more likely to be killed at 30 mph compared to 20 mph, as has been pointed out; 52 per cent of all casualties occurred on 30 mph roads during 2019; and as Mark Isherwood actually pointed out, 2.5 per cent of all roads are 20 mph. Darren, you yourself have been campaigning for years to get that number to come up. This makes us all safer, but it's clearly not a blanket approach. We are the first country in the UK to do this. Go on, Sam.

Would you accept, then, the logic you're taking there, if you take it to its logical end, in terms of vastly reduced speed, reduced risks of death and injury, which could certainly be the case, therefore driving at 1 mph should be the default?

No, because the evidence is, Sam, that for the average journey in Wales, the amount of time it'll take you extra is one minute to save all those lives. It's worth it, isn't it? That's the bottom line. People slow down; you've seen them yourselves. They overtake three cars on a country road and then you end up behind them at the traffic lights. It's really dangerous; they can't see around the corners. I know that you know this. You knew it from your own time in Conwy. Russell.

Minister, I had quite a lot of sympathy for the trials that were undertaken, but you mentioned the cost as well, and then justifying the cost. But I had a letter this morning from the Royal College of Nursing that was entitled 'How much is your and your loved ones' lives worth?' And the letter goes on to talk about that if we have more nurses, if we have a higher rate of pay, it will attract more nurses, we'll have more nurses and that will save lives. And it goes on to talk about that every hour, throughout the day, nurses make life-saving decisions. So, there are other areas that we could spend money on that would potentially save many, many lives. Do you not accept that principle?

Of course there are areas that will save many, many lives, but you know as well as I do that if there's a road traffic accident close to a trauma centre, the hours of waiting go up for the A&E patients as those trauma casualties come in from road traffic accidents. So, that is not—. That's a completely wrong base on which to base it. This saves lives. This saves NHS resources, of course it does. Those 80 people should be saved from death and severe injury, and keep them out of the NHS. That's just a fallacy, the way that you're spinning that around. I've just said what I think about the way that you approach budgets, and I'm just reiterating it now.

Lower speeds mean that people feel more comfortable to walk and cycle. It's safer for children to walk to school, and older people also feel more able to travel independently and safely. I have a 20 mph limit very close to me, and the difference in that village has been absolutely extraordinary, with people out on its streets for the first time in years, able to walk around safely and not be looking over their shoulder all the time. It makes a huge difference to our safer communities. It makes them nicer places to live and work. And the idea that this isn't the case in rural areas is also a fallacy.

I know that you all think that your own inbox is some kind of scientific experiment in popularity and what this policy means, but, actually, we've conducted extensive research on this, and it's as popular in rural areas as it is in urban areas. People in rural areas do not feel safe on narrow country lanes with people going too fast. They do not. They do not feel safe to cycle, they do not feel safe to walk. This is not an urban/rural split, no matter how much you want to make it so. And in urban areas, 20 mph would seem like—. Well, I don't know when the last time was that I was able to get above about 6 mph in any urban area. So, the idea that 20 mph somehow restricts the timing of public transport and so on is nonsense. It probably will speed the number of cars actually travelling over our roads. So, that's just absolute nonsense.

We have a duty to the people of Wales to introduce this measure. It will be one of the things that we do first that we're criticised for by the Tories and then you closely follow. I can list them again if you like: the plastic bags, the organ donation. Let's hope that, one day, over the border will have free prescriptions as well, so you can follow our lead. [Interruption.] I think you've had quite a few interventions, Darren. I'm not taking any more.

I just wanted to correct the record. There was reference there to the plastic bags. We were not against that. In fact, we proposed the charge for plastic bags.

No, I was merely pointing out that Wales went first, and then England followed.

No, you said that we resisted.

And I was making the point that this will be the case—

You said that we resisted.

No, I didn't. I said that Wales went first, and England followed.

You said that we resisted. Check the Record.

And England followed, and this will happen here. So, Llywydd, I absolutely recommend this motion to the Senedd, and I think it is something that will make the people of Wales safer and very proud of their communities. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. Therefore, we will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.