Item 7 this afternoon is a debate on petition P-06-1340, 'Stop the change of speed limits to 20mph on 17th September'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Jack Sargeant.

Motion NDM8306 Jack Sargeant

To propose that the Senedd:

Notes the petition 'P-06-1340 Stop the change of speed limits to 20mph on 17th September' which received 21,920 signatures.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Senedd's Business Committee for allowing us to schedule this debate? Today, we are debating the petition titled 'Stop the change of speed limits to 20mph on 17th September', submitted by Benjamin James Watkins. The petition was signed by more than 20,000 people, before the petitioner agreed, at my request, to close it early. I did this to allow the debate to take place before the change.

It's worth noting from the outset that the change to the default 20 mph limit has become one of the leading issues for petitions since I became Chair of the committee. Twenty-three petitions have been created with '20 mph' in the title during this Senedd term; 17 of those have received the three names they need to progress to collecting signatures. Some have been local petitions, objecting in a specific location. One petitioner in particular wanted a national referendum, and others wanted the change to be stopped altogether, just like this one. The clerking team rejected 11 petitions, unusually, and this was because they replicated a petition that was already collecting signatures.

Now, while this Senedd has debated this issue many times before, and considered it in different committees, it is clear that there remains a large and vocal section of the people of Wales who remain to be convinced by the arguments in favour of this policy change. The text of the petition we are debating today reads:

'Stop the change of speed limits to 20mph on 17th September. This decision is not representative of the broader public opinion and as such, it is not democratic to implement the changes. An alteration to road Laws on this scale should be subject to much more extensive polling or possibly as part of a Welsh referendum on the matter'.

The petitioner warns that, whilst 20 mph zones have become generally accepted around schools, the change in September risks increasing road rage. He also questions whether this is a way to raise money by fining people going over the new limit. The petitioner also argues that the new speed limits will disproportionately affect the commute times of people travelling by road for work, particularly when there is no alternative route.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this Senedd has already voted on 20 mph speed limits, and today's debate is to note the petition. But, what it does do, and what it will do, is give the Deputy Minister responding a further opportunity to explain why this measure is so important, to tell people how to campaign for exemptions in their local communities, and to respond to some of the concerns voiced by thousands of people in Wales who remain sceptical about this change.

As you all will be aware, one of the pilot areas in this trial was Buckley in my own Constituency, and in the Deputy Minister's own words, mistakes were made in that pilot. If you speak to residents in Buckley, this was largely due to the need to listen to locals and local residents on the need for exemptions. Some roads do not need to be 20 mph. It is absolutely vital that we get this exemptions process right and that local people can identify roads that will remain at 30 mph. Deputy Llywydd, I've recently been contacted by residents in Buckley making very reasonable requests about roads B5125 and A549 in particular. We need a process that allows local authorities to be responsive to such requests from local communities. I would encourage the Deputy Minister, between now and the introduction of this policy on 17 September, to work further with local authorities to ensure that they are confident with the exceptions process in place. And that he be willing to strengthen guidance if local government colleagues identify the need for further clarity to make sure that they have the confidence they require. 

Deputy Llywydd, another suggestion, which has come from a constituent of mine, Martin Bailey, is to ensure that the term 'residentials', means just that and not main roads or thoroughfares. In Martin’s own words, I quote, 'this way, 95% of roads can switch to 20 mph as per nearly every other country that has adopted such a scheme'.

Deputy Presiding Officer, in closing my opening contribution, what today should teach us is the need to work together and the need to bring about change in a consensual and reasonable way. I am grateful to the petitioner for their work to enable this debate. As I said at the start, I am grateful to the Business Committee and the Llywydd for allowing the debate to take place before the change takes place in September. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and the Minister's response in particular to the points about giving local authorities those assurances and that confidence they require to make the exceptions that local people and local residents want. Diolch.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I'd like to start by thanking my committee Chair, Jack Sargeant for opening this important debate. In the first instance, I want to emphasise that 21,920 signatures on this petition shows the enormity of Opposition to the blanket reduction in speed to 20 mph on all urban roads in Wales. It highlights in my mind how out of touch the Welsh Government really is in understanding the needs of communities across Wales.

I think I speak for the Majority of this country when I recognise the benefits of having 20 mph speed limits in certain areas, such as around schools and in densely populated areas. I can fully appreciate that reduced speeds can have positive impacts in reducing the extent of casualties and improving air quality in localised areas, but I find myself at a loss to understand the overall point of introducing 20 mph limits on so many other urban roads, most notably because it's completely unenforceable.

Indeed, official UK Government statistics have shown that 87 per cent of drivers break the 20 mph speed limits when they're imposed. Evidence also shows that 20 mph speed limits do not significantly reduce speed. In Islington, one of the first places to introduce a borough-wide 20 mph speed limit, average speeds were reduced by only 1 mph, rather than the intended 10. A Department for Transport study in 2018 described at the time as the largest, most comprehensive and sophisticated study into the effects of 20 mph speed limits to be undertaken in the UK found that drivers' median speed fell by just 0.7 mph in residential areas and 0.9 mph in city centre areas, where limits had been dropped from 30 to 20. The same study also found that the introduction of 20 mph limits increased journey times by 3 per cent in residential areas, and 5 per cent in city centres. Whilst 3 and 5 per cent increases seem insignificant, I would argue that a 5 per cent increase in travel time is going to have many unintended consequences that are going to be more damaging in the longer term. Drivers will likely drive faster on the roads to make up perceived loss of time and this will undoubtedly increase the likelihood of collisions. I’d also argue that there would be a potential for a driver in frustration to increase incidences of road rage.

Moreover, councils across Wales will now have to spend huge sums of money re-marking roads, installing new signage, changing legal notices and have no actual way whatsoever of ensuring this new speed limit is adhered to. My home council of Rhondda Cynon Taff, for example, has ceased all traffic management programmes in order to divert funding to this roll-out, which means that newer much-needed and called-for safety improvements such as pedestrian crossings, speed indicator devices, safer walkways, or tactile crossings will just no longer be installed, and I’m sure that the Deputy Minister didn’t envisage this when these proposals were first put forward.

I believe that there is clearly a balance that needs to be struck between speed, convenience, safety and environmental impact, but blanket 20 mph limits on urban roads is not the answer. As I've mentioned previously in this Chamber, we need to look beyond forced behavioural change and become more innovative in our approach, rather than blanket speed limits, we could look at speed  reduction zones that are designed around the needs of the community and tailored for maximum efficiency. We could even look at installing air filters on our public transport, and erecting smog towers to help tackle air quality. Not only do I think these will have better public support, but they’ll also deliver the improvements in air quality and safety that the Welsh Government are looking for. Thank you.

Natasha Asghar. No, I'm sorry, Natasha.

I was going to say; I've got a—

Sorry. I need to call others, other than just from your group—sorry. I must remember that. Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Apologies, Natasha, for gazumping you, but there we are.

Can I first of all thank the petitioners for signing and introducing this petition? I think it does show the value, actually, of the petitions process here in the Senedd, that we can have these debates as a result of public demand, and I'd like to reiterate the Chair's point, actually, just to be clear that the motion before us isn't to rescind the proposals, or indeed to endorse the proposals; it’s to note the petition, but obviously, it is an opportunity for many of us to debate the issue further. But in reality, I don't expect it to lead to particular change in relation to what's being proposed, because that legislation has been passed, but certainly, I think there's an element of Government hearing some of the important messages that need to be heard in this debate. And I constantly, and consistently, supported the 20 mph default, on the basis, of course, that it will save lives, that it will reduce casualties, bringing not only less suffering, but obviously, savings to the public purse as a consequence. I've supported it on the basis that it will improve communities, it'll create a safer environment for elderly people, children, those who may wish to walk or cycle, where that's an option for them to do so. It'll improve air quality, it'll reduce noise pollution, et cetera, et cetera. We've rehearsed many of those arguments.

But I’ve also supported this legislation on the understanding, of course, that those roads that really don’t need to be 20 mph will revert to 30 mph, and my concern is that as we see the maps emerging from local authorities of which roads will revert to 30 mph hour, I’m slightly concerned that we will end up with roads—for example on the edge of towns, around villages—where, really, 20 mph isn’t necessary, and maybe isn’t necessarily the most sensible option either. Now I’ve driven some of the roads in the Buckley area, which, of course, has been an area that has piloted much of this, and some of the roads are absolutely justified in having 20 mph, there’s no question at all, but there are other roads away from built-up areas, fields on both sides of the road, touching again on the point made by the Chair of the committee, where I do question whether a 30 mph limit would be much more appropriate than a 20 mph zone.

So, clearly, my challenge, therefore, is to the Deputy Minister. It isn’t scrap the proposals, it isn’t 'Let’s go back to the drawing board and let’s leave everything as it is and just accept the fatalities as a price we have to pay'. No. My challenge to the Deputy Minister is what is he and the Government doing to make sure that local authorities don’t just conclude that it’s easier just to make everything 20 mph, regardless of the reality on the ground. We know that resource and capacity is challenging for local councils at the moment, and for some local authorities to revert or to propose to revert to 30 mph in literally just a handful of roads throughout the whole local authority really isn't what I had expected or envisaged when I supported this legislation. Now, the Deputy Minister said on the radio this morning, in what I thought was an excellent interview and making a really strong case for the changes, he said that councils won't get it 100 per cent right on day one. And that's true, isn't it? But what is the Government doing to make sure that local councils get it 90 per cent right on day one, or 95 per cent right on day one? Because, as far as I can see, the numbers of roads that are actually reverting to 30 mph in the areas that I represent are much, much lower than I, and probably most other people, expected.

I'm speaking today because I drive at 20 mph or less on residential roads. I say that, because twice in the last month I would have been in a serious accident if I had driven at 30 mph. The first was on Pleasant Street, where my office is situated. Pleasant Street, like lots of roads, is made up of terraced houses, with most properties having no off-street parking. It is essentially a one-lane road with passing places in between the parked cars. A car drove up at 30 mph, which was inside the current legal limit. I was travelling down at 15 mph, and we stopped about a metre apart. If we had both been doing 30 mph, a head-on collision would have been inevitable.

The second incident was when a car pulled out from a parking area near the Guildhall. Again travelling at less than 20 mph, I stopped without a collision. At 30 mph, I would have had a collision and probably another serious one. I think the general consensus is that 20 mph is a suitable speed limit on estate roads. I travel to my office in Morriston, which is almost exactly 1 mile, but the sat nav tells me it will take me five minutes, which is an average speed of 12 mph. There are motorways where the speed limit is either 50 mph or 70 mph, and these will not be altered. The problem with motorways in Wales is that they have too many junctions close together. The M4 has more junctions in Wales than there are in England, despite the English section being much longer.

The road system consists of A roads, which are major roads intended to provide large-scale transport links within or between areas; B roads, intended to connect different areas and to feed traffic between A roads and smaller roads; and unclassified or unnumbered smaller roads to connect together unclassified roads with A and B roads. And unclassified roads, which are the main ones, over 60 per cent of roads, are the roads we travel along in estates. These are the roads that desperately need 20 mph, and even those that are relatively wide need 20 mph, because you have parking on there.

I regularly drive around Swansea and find that you need to drive at no more than 20 mph on estate roads, where most are, effectively, single lane, with passing points in between parked cars due to cars parked on both sides of the road. Areas of older terraced housing and council estates where houses do not have drives mean that people cannot drive safely at 30 mph; there is parking at both sides of the road, as people seek to park near their home. Even on newer estates where there are drives, cars still park on the road, especially where drives are very steep and have a significant slope going up or down. Roads that are main roads, unless they pass directly in front of an entrance to a school or to a shopping area, I would want and expect to keep the current 30 mph speed limit. While individual councils will decide the speed limit of each road, I would expect the change to mainly affect unclassified roads.

I was actually contacted by a constituent who lives in Manselton on a road of 20 mph. They accepted 20 mph was needed for a residential area such as Manselton and do not want a 30 mph speed limit in their street, where they live, but do not wish the speed limit reduced elsewhere. I've also been told you should drive to road conditions, but, as the condition of the road is the same for everyone, why do vehicles travel at different speeds? I suggest that if people think that 30 mph is not appropriate for the road they live on—not the road they travel on, the road they live on—they should petition the council, and, if over half the houses on the street do not want the speed limit reduced, it is not. Because people always seem to want the next street over or the street they drive along, not where they live: my experience of discussing this with people objecting to 20 mph is that it is not the road they live on that matters—their road need to be 20 mph to keep them safe—but, for the road that they travel on, going past other people's houses, 30 mph is fine. Traffic movement at junctions should improve with 20 mph speed limits, but certainly in urban areas, outside A and B roads, exceeding 20 mph safely is currently, in my opinion, impossible.

Finally, the key to it working is enforcement. As long as the police and GoSafe enforce 20 mph like any other speed limit, it will work. But can I just come back to the point I really want to get across? A and B roads are different. A roads are different. They're major arterial roads. A roads need to stay at 30 mph. I hope the Minister is going to say that today.

Firstly, can I thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Jack Sargeant, alongside all the other members, for bringing this debate forward, as well as all those who've made it possible? Because, in a matter of months, this hugely damaging blanket 20 mph plan is set to come into force. Now, today marks Eid, as my colleague Altaf Hussain made a 90-second statement on earlier. For many people, it's a day of celebration, joy, colour, and, as I left home today, my own mother asked me, 'Why on earth are you wearing black?' To which I had to respond to say to her, 'Mum, today's the day that I'm more likely to be seeing the death of the 30 mph default speed limit here in Wales.'

Now, nearly 100,000 people have signed various petitions calling for the blanket roll-out of 20 mph speed limits to be scrapped. Let that resonate: 100,000 people, including 21,920 people who backed the petition, are those people we are talking about today. Based on the momentum these petitions have gained in such a short period of time, it's clear that there is no appetite for 20 mph limits being placed across the country. Businesses don't want them. Residents don't want them. We don't want them. But, of course, don't worry what people think, because the Deputy Minister here knows best. As I've said on countless occasions, there is absolutely a 100 per cent need for targeted action, such as outside schools, such as outside play areas, such as along high streets, but a blanket move of 20 mph covering all streets is just not the way forward.

Fewer than 6,000 individuals responded to the Welsh Government public consultation, which is just a drop in the ocean when you compare it to the vast numbers of people vocally opposing the plans. Even so, most people—53 per cent who took part in the consultation—were against the backwards plan, with 47 per cent of them being strongly against. I even took part and, frankly, the questions were phrased in such a way that, if you did not agree with the Welsh Government agenda, you'd feel like a psychopath if you opposed or were even against the 20 mph plans.

There is a series of reasons, and I totally accept what's been said, why people are against these plans, but the main two are the costs involved and the fact that many see this as nothing more than a money-making exercise. The costs involved, let me tell you all now, in this ridiculous scheme, are colossal, with £32.5 million being spent on just implementing it. And according to the Welsh Government's own figures, it will have a disbenefit of £6.4 billion due to the impact of journey times on businesses and households. Earlier today I asked the health Minister about funding for vital services. I totally accepted her answer, but, Presiding Officer, please tell me, for a Government that claims to be cash strapped, wasting this amount of money on yet another vanity project, while the people of Wales are facing cost-of-living pressures, will be a very bitter pill to swallow.

And let's just take a moment to look at the facts. I'd like you to all remember what I'm about to say today. In the last five years, including the time of COVID, road collisions have reduced—yes, reduced—on 30 mph roads, and increased on 20 mph roads. Between 2017 and 2022, collisions on 30 mph roads fell by 33 per cent, with 2,528 in 2017 and 1,691 in 2022. Yet, in the same period, incidents on 20 mph roads increased by a whopping 174 per cent, and that's not all. The number of reported casualties jumped on 20 mph roads and dropped on 30 mph roads during the same time. There was a 34 per cent drop in incidents on 30 mph roads, and a huge increase of 178 per cent on 20 mph roads.

The blanket 20 mph speed limit plan is something that my constituents regularly contact me about. And as Shadow Minister for transport, from all corners of Wales I have received e-mails, phone calls, you name it, from all constituents, from all your various constituencies here. And I want to share something with you from one constituent from south-east Wales who recently told me, as I feel it pretty much sums up the general mood that's across Wales, she said, and I quote, 'This is just another way of raising costs for Welsh people who are trying to get by. I would prefer the Welsh Government to concentrate on sorting out the more pressing, urgent and important issues they are struggling with, such as health, education, rather than introducing half-thought-out schemes such as this. Or is it that they are trying to do something different from everybody else as though it's a good thing? I'm not impressed.' End quote.

Lee Waters recently admitted, and I quote,

'the 20 mph speed limit was applied to the whole area, rather than only some parts. ‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‍‌​‌‌Now, I think that was a mistake.'

End quote. Whilst I'm glad to see the Deputy Minister came round to the Welsh Conservatives way of thinking, if even he has admitted that this is already a failed policy, why on earth are we pushing ahead with this? So, please, consider this my eleventh-hour plea for the Welsh Government to act in the best interests of the people of Wales. I know that this may be an alien concept, but, please, stop the ludicrous blanket 20 mph speed limit roll-out, and please just stick to schools, play areas, places of worship and high streets going forward. Thank you so much.

I'd like Natasha Asghar to head to Rudry, Machen, St Martin's Road and Gilfach in my Constituency and in her region and make a version of that speech on the doorstep, because I guarantee that people who hear it will not be happy. There have been tragic accidents in those areas, and those areas are not high streets, they're not outside schools, they are people's residential areas, and they are having a huge welcome for the 20 mph limits there. So, on the whole, this is the right policy for those areas, and I would be doing a disservice to those people who live in this community if I were to oppose the principles of the rules that the Deputy Minister is introducing today.

The concern I have stems from, as Jack Sargeant has mentioned and Llyr has mentioned, the exemptions. The issue is with the power of the current exemption programme and the ability to manoeuvre around the Welsh Government rules to allow them. Now, I've spoken to councillors in Caerphilly, who've reported to me the views of officers in Caerphilly council, who've told me that, as far as they're concerned, the current exemptions, that's the end of it; they won't be revisiting further after the introduction. Now, that would be unfortunate, because there are a number of roads in my constituency that I can see that I travel every day that would not be appropriate for a 20 mph zone. Now, I can say that it's not appropriate for me to build that campaign now; I think it is right to wait for that to come in. But the problem will be, when people are raising concerns with me, and I'm raising with the council, I'll be coming up against a brick wall, because the exemptions will not be able to be applied because of Welsh Government rules. I think that is where this policy is in danger of becoming difficult to introduce and difficult to enforce, because you have to do this by consent and carry people with you.

I agree with Llyr Gruffydd that the Minister gave a good interview today, although I do disagree with the final—or have concerns about the final—line in what he said.

'I think in a year's time', he said,

'we will look back at this and think it was a lot of fuss about nothing.'

I think that does a disservice to this petition, and I think it does a disservice to those of us who have concerns, and I feel that the Minister must answer that question, raised by Jack, raised by Llyr, that the exemptions process is currently not going to allow the exemptions to be applied post introduction, as we want them to. I don't want to be coming back to Welsh Government, standing up in this Chamber and saying that the Welsh Government has got this wrong; what I want is for them to get it right now. This is the Deputy Minister's opportunity to do so.

A number of people who've written to me, who are in Opposition to the policy, often start their e-mails—nine times out of 10—with, 'I'm in favour of residential areas and schools being covered, but I feel I'm not being listened to.' What I've said to those people is, 'If you feel that there are areas that legitimately need to revert to 30, then I will visit them with you, after the introduction, and I will make a judgment myself as to whether they fit with the policy, and, if they don't, then I will make that campaign to the council for you.' I fear that I will be hamstrung by the Welsh Government's regulations at a later date. I need assurances from the Deputy Minister that that's not going to be the case.

I'd also like to put on record my thanks to the over 20,000 people who signed the petition, making their voices heard and making sure this Senedd seeks to debate their concerns today, and I share Hefin David's frustration with the Minister's comments, describing the fact that it's a fuss over nothing. It's a fuss over something, and it's something that concerns, clearly, tens of thousands of people in Wales. Because, as we know, this default change to 20 mph will be one of the most significant visual changes that has happened in the period of devolution. It will impact people across the whole of Wales on a daily basis, and, as the Chairman of the Petitions Committee pointed out, my region of North Wales has a particular interest, as Buckley was one of the guinea pigs for the Welsh Government trials. To get an idea of the public feeling on the matter, I conducted a survey amongst residents in Buckley, where 97 per cent of the respondents—so, 97 per cent of people who'd had this experience of this 20 mph across the whole area—said that the trial had been a failure and they wanted it ditched. Residents cited all sorts of reasons as to why that was the case, and I haven't got the time to go into all that this afternoon.

But it's not, of course, only residents that thought the trial was a complete flop. As we've heard already today, the Minister forcing those changes through seems to agree with them. And Minister, I have to say, you are getting quite a reputation for being one of the most honest men in the Welsh Labour Party, because you did say that you did get it wrong—got it completely wrong—when it come to the Buckley trial, and I couldn't agree more. I'd like to also add that the policy itself is wrong as well, not just the cackhanded nature of the trial that took place in Buckley.

Additionally, Llywydd, I think it's also important to consider the unintended consequences of this measure, the knock-on effects being taken into consideration, and I'd be grateful to hear from the Deputy Minister as to what consideration, again, has been taken. For example, domiciliary care workers who need to use vehicles in order to see vulnerable patients, from one home to the next, often travelling within villages or between small towns, either they're going to have to see fewer of those vulnerable people to be supported, or they're going to have to work longer hours to satisfy this requirement. Another group of people, I think, who'll be impacted of course are delivery drivers, often on perhaps minimum wage, taking those packages across towns and villages, who have to meet strict time deadlines in order to make a living. They're going to be significantly impacted by this change. Another group of people, I think, who'll be significantly impacted are retained firefighters. We know retained firefighters have to travel to a fire station within a few minutes. The amount of space in which they can recruit retained firefighters is clearly going to be reduced. [Interruption.] Is that an Intervention there, Llywydd?

Yes. Are you taking an Intervention? Yes.

Choosing the firefighters as an example is really undermining your case, because, if somebody is having to attend to a fire, it's a 999 call; clearly, they are going to be travelling at a lot more than 30 mph. And as for the timed visits between delivery drivers, it's the company that needs to change, because we cannot have people saying, 'Well, I've got to deliver this parcel quicker or I'm going to lose my job', when they might actually be running down a child. This is the cart before the horse.

Talk about scaremongering; accusing delivery drivers of running down children, I think, is the epitome of scaremongering. And we talk about retained firefighters—very careful to talk about retained firefighters; they're a group of people who have to travel to a fire station, not when they're undertaking the 999 call itself. They're only allowed to choose people from a certain proximity, and that proximity will be reduced. It will be harder for retained firefighters to satisfy the needs of the fire service.

So, if you've got people working hard, day in and day out, the policy—which is going to be implemented, let's face it—will make their lives more difficult, and, ultimately, slows Wales down. Being put bluntly, this blanket 20 mph is anti-growth, anti-jobs, and makes the lives of people in Wales even harder. It should be ditched. Thank you very much.

Accidents don't have to happen. I support the 20 mph adoption, of course, but I do want to thank the petitioners. It's really, really important that we have this process, and it's important that this is transparent and that we address some of the issues, if we can, that they've raised. So, I just wanted to look at two or three of the issues that have been raised by the petitioners.

Firstly, there is a little bit of concern around the research and the evaluation of 20 mph zones and limits and what they actually do produce. Well, I did a very quick search myself. The first widespread evaluation of the 20 mph zone was carried out in 1996, and it found that injuries and accidents were reduced by 60 per cent for adults, and for children, were reduced by 67 per cent. So, that's 1996. And then, in 2007, a review of 20 mph zones implemented in London found that they reduced injuries by 42 per cent, and fatal or serious accidents by 53 per cent. So, the research has been done; it is unequivocal. It saves lives, and it actually—to go to Natasha's point—helps our health services, because our health services then don't have to respond to these tragic situations.

I wanted to address a second issue, which is why are we looking at this without a referendum. Well, it's because we have to focus in on safety. Let's look at the change in seatbelt Laws. That wasn't introduced via a referendum. That was introduced in 1983—can you believe it—in 1989, and 1991; gradually, it increased the use of seatbelts in cars, for drivers, front-seat drivers, and then back-seat drivers, and it actually saves lives. We know that the Road Safety Observatory said that seatbelts are 50 per cent effective at preventing fatal injuries for drivers. So, that is an absolute safety—[Interruption.] Of course I'll take an Intervention.

Thank you, Jane Dodds, for taking an Intervention. And of course, we all want to see lives being saved. If that's the complete goal of what you're looking to achieve, do you not think that cars should drive at 1 mph then? Because, therefore, all lives would be saved completely there.

I'm going to carry on and not address that, because I really feel it's important that we look at the evidence that's produced by people who are experts in this. And that's what I've been reading, and it shows that lives are saved. So, really, we have to acknowledge that slower speeds actually save lives. Collisions involving vulnerable road users have a 97 per cent chance of survival at 20 mph. At 30 mph, that drops by 5 per cent. That is actual lives. It is so important that we look at this. Public Health Wales, they say the lowering of the speed limit to 20 mph will save an estimated six to 10 lives and between 1,200 and 2,000 casualties every year, at a cost to the health service of between £58 million and £94 million. Now, that is going to mean more nurses, more doctors. 

I just want to pay tribute to the Deputy Minister. About six months ago, I listened in to a 90-minute phone-in to Radio Wales. I don't know if you remember it, but you were on it, I was going somewhere, there was a whole 90 minutes around your portfolio. Around 70 per cent of those calls, if I remember correctly, were about people wanting to complain about the 20 mph proposal, and, I have to say, you answered each one really clearly. You had the evidence to hand, and almost all of them left the call understanding the situation better. They may not have agreed, but they understood the reasons why the Welsh Government were actually introducing this.

So, maybe there is something around communication that needs to happen; that we need to be clearer, perhaps, with the public why this is being introduced and to ensure that people know the exemptions, and make sure that people know that this is about having a safer, healthier and a more livable Wales that actually means that we save lives and reduce injuries. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

When I was a Cabinet member for Flintshire County Council up to May 2021, areas lobbied for 20 mph zones after seeing them being introduced across the border in Chester, including Saltney following a terrible accident involving a young person, and Mynydd Isa, which has large residential estates. It was suggested that Buckley be a pilot area and I asked for it to be extended to include Mynydd Isa, and also suggested Saltney as a pilot area following the lobbying. I was told that Saltney was rejected but Buckley was agreed by Welsh Government, including neighbouring Mynydd Isa. When Buckley agreed to be a pilot, it was believed that certain arterial routes could be exempt. It would be introduced outside schools, dense residential areas such as housing estates, but not along the main arterial routes. However, Welsh Government officials were strict about the exceptions criteria, and that meant that all the arterial roads had to be included, and that's how it's interpreted. There was more or less a blanket reduction to 20 mph. 

Local authority officers were told it was for consistency, which they understood because local authority officers like everything to be black and white, so they understand how criteria can be applied. There has been a shift now following the pilots, so there will not be a blanket 20 mph for all current 30 mph roads, and there is more flexibility for local authorities to make roads back up to 30 mph under a single traffic restriction Order if they can prove they are not used by pedestrians and cyclists. However, I'm told that the criteria are still too strict to permit flexibility, and many of the arterial routes have pavements and street lighting, so perhaps the criteria need to be changed. I think the issue also is that local authorities are worried about the liability falling to them as well if they increase a road back up to 30 mph against the criteria, and there's an accident. So, that needs to be dealt with. 

I believe that we should have had better partnership working between Welsh Government and local government, as there has recently been during the current public bus transport emergency, which I do commend. Statutory consultations with the public do take a lot of resources and time, and when Flintshire did a county-wide speed limit review when I was a cabinet member, years ago, it took approximately two years just to consult, advertise and address all the objections, because some people wanted a 40 mph, where they didn't, et cetera, et cetera. And then they had to do some minor adjustments later, so it does take a lot of time to do.

I'm told that putting the signs up just for Buckley, the pilot area, took six weeks and a lot of overtime. Some roadworks and road markings may need to take place as well. Resources are so scarce in councils there's a lack of highway technical officers, experts who can draw up traffic regulation orders, do community consultations and respond to objections. There’s a lack of operatives, as many operate on a skeletal staff now following a decade of austerity and inflationary pressures, so agency staff have to be brought in. I believe that there is some funding to help with that, but I’m just not sure at the moment. But to do all the changes within the deadline of September across counties may be very difficult. The same technical teams delivering this are trying to apply for active travel funding, which is arduous, as well as deliver the schemes, so resource is stretched. I’ve noticed that the only exemptions already showing on the map in Flintshire are the Buckley ones, and Flintshire has got a lot more roads to look at before September.

I hope, going forward, the Deputy Minister recognises the need to listen to local government and work in partnership going forward on this issue and others, as he did with the current public bus transport. Thank you.

A number of us—I'm sure all of us—will have had quite a lot of correspondence from constituents, and people who are not our constituents in Wales, about the prospect of a default 20 mph speed limit, and in those e-mails will be thousands of reasons as to why this shouldn’t proceed, but I will condense it down in the short amount of time that I will take, Llywydd, down to 20—20 mph, 20 reasons.

First of all, the public don’t want it. As we heard from the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Jack Sargeant, more than 20,000 people signed this petition before it was agreed to be stopped, and we know that other—[Interruption.] Sorry, Jenny, let me make progress. And the second point I’d say is that we know that more than 58,000 people signed a change.org petition, and we know from Natasha Asghar there are other petitions as well. Thirdly, the Welsh Government’s own consultation on this showed that 53 per cent of people opposed these changes. And fourth: why? Why? Because we know one of the reasons is that people are worried about increased journey times, frustrating for road users, potentially dangerous, and damaging for our economy.

But we come back to cost. Fifth: £32 million will be spent on a scheme when the Government is failing to fund public transport and other areas. Six: we’ve seen the reduction in average speed could result in that positive financial return over 30 years of around £25 million, but that’s £7 million less than the £32 million being spent on the scheme in the first place. Jenny, did you want to come in.

Yes, I would just say, on the public not supporting this, certainly I can only represent my own constituents, but I can say there's overwhelming support in an urban place like Cardiff for increasing road safety by having a default 20 mph on most residential roads. Frankly, not many people are travelling more than 20 mph because that's the number of people who are congesting our roads. Therefore, you have to recognise that, in residential areas, there is a huge amount of support for making our roads safer.

I understand your point, Jenny, and thank you for the Intervention, but I would remind you, representing Cardiff Central, that your constituents may not represent the country as a whole. This is a Welsh Government with a one-size-fits-all approach of a default 20 mph scheme for the whole country, and that's why it's inappropriate.

We've heard from a number of Members about Buckley, and I had correspondence coming in from Buckley even though I obviously do not represent that area. I know that 46,000 signatures alone were collected in the separate petition in Buckley. And, eight: the Deputy Minister acknowledged that he made a mistake in Buckley. And, nine: there's a story in Buckley saying that 20 mph could lead to increased road rage incidents.

Point 10: somewhere else this was being trialled was in Belfast, and the Queen's University Belfast report suggested that there was no significant statistical difference one year on from the implementation of those 20 mph schemes. The Department for Transport—point 11—in 2011, said that there was an increase in road traffic accidents on 20 mph roads over time. Point 12: the UK Government public health summary of evidence said that 

'Blanket 20 mph limits may contribute to dangerous driving on certain roads'.

We know, 13, a report from Cambridgeshire County Council said that a lower speed limit

'can lead to an increase in poorly judged overtaking', which puts road users like cyclists at risk. Fourteen: 84 per cent of people in Welsh Government's summary of responses on the matter reported they feel safe in residential areas in terms of travelling under the status quo, so the change is not needed. Fifteen: in Islington council, as we've heard already, in places where it has been piloted, the average speed drops by just 1 mph. Sixteen: installing speed limit signs without traffic-calming features is likely to have a minimal impact, unless they are enforced; that, again, is from the public health summary of evidence by the UK Government. Seventeen: there's good evidence that 20 mph zones with traffic-calming measures reduce speed to an average above 20 mph.

And if we're worried about the environment, because that is what this is dressed up in, I'd direct you to point 18: there's no guarantee that speed reduction will reduce air pollution; that's the Department for Transport saying that. In point 19, the UK Government also say that particulate emission is likely to be reduced, while it's unlikely that nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide levels are affected either way by speed reduction. And finally, point 20: if the Welsh Government were serious about the environmental benefits of transport, they would've invested in electric vehicle charging points, but they've completely failed to do that. So, we know that Labour's one-size-fits-all policy is anti-car, anti-commuter and anti-economy.

As others have, I welcome our petitions system, Llywydd, and this debate today, which is important and should be happening, because, obviously, this is a very significant change. It is a change that I very much welcome and have long supported. I believe that the case for that change is very well made over a period of time, and this isn't something that's had a brief gestation period; it's something that's been worked up over quite an extended length of time, and rightly so. 

Many have talked about the road safety benefits, and I do believe that they're beyond question, despite what others have said. The experience in Spain, for example, shows a 20 per cent reduction in deaths on urban roads since they've had their reduction in speeds similar, although a lower speed, to what we propose here in Wales. In London, there was 25 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries, as detailed by Transport for London. There are many other examples, which other Members have touched upon.

As other Members have mentioned, I've had experience of constituents who have lost children on urban roads supporting this policy with great passion and feeling, as you would expect given those family tragedies. We do not want to see any more of those deaths—preventable deaths—on our inner-urban roads. So, the road safety aspect is hugely important in driving this policy, but there are very many other benefits, Llywydd. It will allow our communities to reclaim our streets for active travel, for example, to allow elderly people, primary school-aged children and people with disabilities to get out and about more and make those communities much more living communities, with all of the benefits that that brings.

I think it is very disingenuous, Llywydd, to hear Natasha Asghar bandying about the term 'blanket ban', when we all know that that is not what is happening or what is proposed. [Interruption.] No, it's not. It's a default policy that's proposed, Llywydd, so that whereas previously there would be a default 30 mph speed limit and traffic orders could be taken forward to make it 20 mph, that will now be reversed. I'm sorry if Natasha Asghar can't accept that, because that is factual—that is factual.

In the Monmouthshire County Council area, within the area that Natasha Asghar represents, we've seen an example of the fact that it's not a blanket ban, because there was a pilot scheme and that pilot scheme was tweaked. There was local concern on a stretch of the B4245 in Caldicot, and in response to that the pilot was changed so that a length of that road was taken out of the pilot. Now, Monmouthshire County Council is proposing a further tweak, which they will take forward on that stretch of road. So, you know, I'm sorry if Natasha Asghar isn't up to speed with what's happening in her own area, but she is being very disingenuous, at the very least, Llywydd.

My experience is that it is perfectly possible for a local authority to tweak this policy and to respond to public concern. I accept what people have said—that sometimes, in some areas of Wales, obviously, the communication, perhaps, between the Welsh Government, local authorities and local communities hasn't been everything that it should be. When is a significant policy change ever implemented without the need to tweak and to learn lessons? That's why we had the pilots and, no doubt, even though we've had those pilots, there will be a need for further tweaks and further change as we implement this policy. We've heard the Deputy Minister accept that on numerous occasions in setting out the Welsh Government's thinking. So, yes, it's important to get it right, and we must ensure that those communications between the Welsh Government, local authorities and communities are everything that they need to be, but it's the right policy for the right reasons—road safety paramount amongst them—and it's going to be a hugely beneficial change for our communities here in Wales.

This petition, as we've heard, was closed early. Its 21,920 signatures would otherwise have risen far higher. A better indication is provided by the petition to 'Stop the Welsh Govt imposing blanket 20mph speed limits', launched in Buckley, Flintshire, selected by the Welsh Government as one of eight pilot areas to trial a default 20 mph speed limit, which had reached 58,546 signatures by lunchtime today, including 84 added just this morning. This reflects the real lived experience of people living in the north Wales pilot area feeling sidestepped by the Deputy Minister who selected it.

The 60 per cent support claimed by the Deputy Minister, we understand, was polled before the pilots went live, and his fig leaf of an exceptions policy leaves councils with extremely limited discretion. Labour councillors have told me that. He ignored all research challenging his claim the default 20 mph speed limit will reduce casualties. In pursuit, as we've heard, of evidence-based road safety policies, the UK Department for Transport published an authoritative independent 20 mph research study in November 2018 that found no significant safety outcome in terms of collisions and casualties in residential areas. Following this, as we've heard, a 2022 study from Queen's University Belfast, Edinburgh university and the University of Cambridge found that reducing speed limits from 30 mph to 20 mph has had 'little impact' on road safety.

The Minister has previously quoted police records of road accidents for 2021 that showed that 53 per cent of all road accidents happened on 30 mph roads. The same figures show that 3 per cent of all road accidents occur on 20 mph roads. Transport for Wales data estimates that the change will increase 20 mph speed limits from 2.5 per cent to 36.9 per cent of roads in Wales, whilst reducing 30 mph speed limits from 37.4 per cent to 3 per cent. This would mean that the accident rate on 20 mph roads would approach 50 per cent whilst falling to 4.2 per cent on 30 mph roads.

The flood of e-mails I've received from residents of pilot town Buckley up to this morning has included, 'Many of these roads are busy access roads on steep hills. The lorries are struggling to get up the hills in such a low gear, and sticking to such a low speed downhill is hard on the brakes.' A cyclist wrote—one of many, actually—'Instead of overtaking and getting out of the way, these cars, vans and lorries will be driving close behind, in front or alongside me. This has not been thought through.' Another resident said, 'It's doing the opposite of what it's supposedly set out to do. There's more pollution with cars chugging around in lower gears, people pay less attention to the road, and more on the speedometer, leading to incidents on roads that previously had none.' And, as another said this weekend, 'The so-called default scheme is a mistake, resulting in bad driving, near misses and increased pollution.'

I speak as the father and grandfather of Buckley residents who accept the benefit of this on certain residential estates, but totally oppose what they perceive to be the quasi-blanket approach thus far adopted. Those people and their neighbours want to be heard. Diolch yn fawr.

The Deputy Minister to contribute to the debate. Lee Waters.

Thank you to everybody who has contributed to the debate, and to the petitioners. I agree with the comments that it is very healthy that there is a mechanism where there is strong feeling for that to be brought to the Senedd for us to debate.

Let me just begin by addressing the petition head on. It said that this has not followed a democratic process. That is palpably not the case. There have been two votes in this Welsh Parliament on this matter, both passed with two-thirds majorities on a cross-party basis, as well as this featuring in the manifesto of the party that won the Senedd elections and formed the Government. By the tests of our democracy and our parliamentary system, that is the way that we seek consent for policies, and this policy has had that consent.

I would remind the Conservatives that when it was initially voted on in this Senedd, most of their group at the time voted in favour of it. In fact, Janet Finch-Saunders made a very strong speech in which she said:

'there is support on these benches for introducing 20 mph speed limits....It's a common sense and it's a safe move.'

Janet's saying from a sedentary position, 'In certain areas'. That’s not the case. If you read your own speech, Janet, which I did last night, you made clear you supported the report by our expert panel on a default approach. So, that was your position back then, and it was the—[Interruption.] Well, Janet, I encourage you to read what you said three years ago. [Interruption.]

If you want to clarify what you said, then you're perfectly entitled to try and intervene on the Deputy Minister.

Of course you can.

Thank you. If you actually read clearly, I actually showed examples of where in my Constituency it had really been very helpful, the 20 mph, but not as a blanket approach at all.

Okay, well, I'd encourage you—

It's that default position that needs clarification.

Thank you. The Minister can respond.

I'd encourage you to actually go back and read what you said, Janet, three years ago, because you did explicitly endorse the default recommendation of the Phil Jones report.

In fact, I've heard the claims of some of the benches that this is an anti-car, anti-growth policy, when Conservative-controlled Cornwall Council are bringing in a standard 20 mph for rural and urban areas where they are built up, in residential areas. That is a Conservative council in England pursuing this policy. So, this claim that this is an agenda different to theirs, again, is also false.

So, I can only conclude the Conservatives are being deeply opportunistic once again and deeply disingenuous. We all have seen the picture of Andrew R.T. Davies with Rod King, the lead campaigner of the 20’s Plenty campaign. [Interruption.] No, I won't give way. [Interruption.] So, we see them popping up in their constituencies—

Allow the Deputy Minister to carry on with his contribution.

—when it suits them to support local campaigns, we see them in this Chamber supporting the principle of the measure, we see Conservative councils supporting this, and now they're coming out with a party line today where everybody is saying this is a blanket ban. It is not a blanket ban. That is palpably untrue. It is a false statement, it's a misleading statement, and it is deliberately so.

There are a number of concerns that have been expressed, and I completely understand them, on the exemptions process. Jack Sargeant, Hefin David and Llyr Gruffydd all expressed their concerns about the way the exemptions process was being applied in practice, and I completely understand those concerns. Carolyn Thomas talked us through the history of the Buckley pilot. The purpose of the Buckley pilot, as with the other pilots, was to trial different elements of this approach. So, some pilots trialled monitoring, some trialled community consultation, some trialled enforcement. We chose Buckley to trial the exceptions process.

Buckley—Liverpool Road for those of you who know it, and I, like many of you, have driven it—is a very difficult example to look at, because some sections clearly should be 20 mph, and some sections clearly should be 30 mph. We took an approach, as Carolyn said, for the purposes of testing the approach in a pilot, to take an area-wide approach and not to allow exemptions, and that clearly showed the case that exemptions were in fact the right way to go. We learnt enormous lessons from that; that's the point of a pilot. In fact, the exemptions criteria were amended in the light of that pilot. So, let me just read from the exemptions criteria:

'highway authorities continue to have the flexibility to set local speed limits that are right for individual roads, reflecting local needs and considerations. 

'Where their decision deviates from this guidance highway authorities should have a clear and reasoned case.'

So, highway authorities can make exceptions if they have a clear and reasoned case. The guidance sets a set of criteria where we think 20 mph should apply. Because this is a national scheme, we need consistency. And that is based on the expert—[Interruption.] Can I just finish my point, please, Joyce? That is based on the expert advice we had, and we set out, as many of you will know, an expert task force four years ago—we’ve not rushed this—which was led by the highly respected Phil Jones, which included representation from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Road Haulage Association, the police and the WLGA. And we have worked on their 21 recommendations. This is an evidence-based approach, unlike the contributions from the Conservative benches this afternoon.

And we’ve decided to give local authorities that discretion. They came up with guidelines of 100m within a school, a community centre, a hospital, houses and shops. And the example that was given, I think by Llyr Gruffydd, of a stretch of road with fields either side, well, that clearly—I don’t know the circumstances he’s talking about—under the guidance would not be a 20 mph stretch of road. So, common sense needs to be applied, and I have written to local authorities on more than one occasion to urge them to apply common sense.

Now, I understand the point that’s been made by colleagues, and Hefin David in particular, that local authorities are often risk averse, they like black and white and they want to have the cover of the Welsh Government’s guidance, and some of them have been very conservative about applying exemptions. Rhondda Cynon Taf, for example, have applied many exemptions, as indeed they’re able to. John Griffiths pointed out that, in Monmouthshire, an exemption’s been applied, and, as we’ve shown, exemptions have been applied in Buckley. [Interruption.]

 I said that I’d give way to Joyce Watson first, so I’ll do that, if you don’t mind.

I want to give an example. I've campaigned for many, many years on 20's Plenty, and it is. And the reason that I first came into it, if you want any evidence, was talking to a bereaved family when a child had been killed in my area in a road traffic accident just after I was elected. If you want any evidence at all, I hope that you'll never have to face it in the way that I had to face it and in the way that that family had to face it. They also had to move because they lived right by the road. It was devastating, and I mean truly devastating. So, this is what we're really talking about. Let's bring it right back to the reasons that we are here today and the debate that's taking place, because it does and will save lives.

Thank you very much, Joyce. I do acknowledge the leadership that you have shown and that John Griffiths has shown over many years on this issue.

But let me just quote one statistic to this Senedd: in the distance it takes for a car travelling at 20 mph to stop, a car travelling at 30 mph will still be moving at 24 mph in the same distance. And we know that someone is five times more likely to be killed if they're hit at 30 mph than they are at 20 mph. The evidence on road safety is unarguable. There's been a mix of cherry-picked reports quoted by various Members on the Conservative benches this afternoon, and I'm inclined to quote Alexander Pope, to say, 

'A little learning is a dangerous thing.'

This has been combed over by multiple expert groups. This has been looked at by Public Health Wales. There are evidence studies published on the Welsh Government website. The evidence of experience in Edinburgh where, for four years, they've had properly evaluated studies, is showing a 25 per cent drop in casualties. In Spain, where there's a national default speed limit, there is a 20 per cent fall in deaths. In central London, we are seeing now—and right across England where they're trialling this—consistent falls in casualty numbers. And, as Jane Dodds pointed out, the saving that presents to the NHS over 10 years is £1 billion. It's going to cost £30 million to introduce. It'll pay that back in its first year alone three times over. So, let us not have crocodile tears from the party that's starving the NHS of money for the NHS. The NHS welcomes this—[Interruption.]

The Minister is well out of time. I don't think he has time to give way, but if you have any concluding comments, then, Minister, please.

This will be a difficult policy, there's no doubt about it. This is the biggest change in road safety and in public health in the history of the time the Senedd has been sitting. It's a major change in behaviour for people who have been trained and spent all their lives driving at 30 mph. Just as it took time to get used to seatbelts and smoking in public places, and paying for carrier bags, and breathalysers, it will take time. And I'm sure that councils and we haven't got it 100 per cent right the first time, and that's the joy of the default—it can be changed. And we will make funding available next financial year to assist with those changes. I expect them to be exceptions, not the rule. I think we will look back at this, Llywydd, in years to come and we'll be proud of the decision we've made, as the statistics will do in Wales what they've done everywhere else: save lives, cut noise, improve levels of active travel and strengthen our communities. Diolch.

Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank all those who contributed today and the Minister for his response? Llywydd, you will be pleased that I'm not going to be able to go through all Members' contributions today. There was a significant number of people who spoke in the debate, and also, I know, a significant number of people who were unable to be called during today's debate. But I just will run through some things.

A number of Members referenced the importance of today's debate and the importance of the petitions process in hearing the concerns of the people of Wales, and I hope we have been able to do that today and amplify some of the voices. Mark Isherwood in his comments suggested, and was right to suggest, that this particular petition closed early in collecting signatures. What he failed to suggest in his contribution was that the reason it was closed early was to have this very debate, and you were able to voice the concerns of your residents because of that decision that was taken.

Llywydd, to run through a number of concerns from Members, Joel James, my colleague on the committee, talked about striking the right balance, which I think was a common theme. He also mentioned some of the unintended consequences, perhaps, that residents have raised as concerns, and I know a number of other people, Members of the Senedd, today have raised that particular point there.

Mike Hedges—general consensus, but there obviously needs to be exemptions within that. I, Hefin and Llyr—. Hefin David spoke very eloquently about the tragic accidents and the concerns he had and residents had in general about 30 mph speed limits. I think it's a credit to Hefin to speak in such a way while still raising the concerns about the exemptions process that local authorities have to go through.

Carolyn Thomas—the experience of her in Cabinet as a local authority deputy leader at the time, and the criteria possibly is still too strict, but working in partnership I think was the key point there. I know John Griffiths and Jane Dodds have been supportive of this model.

Llywydd, I hope that the voices of the people of Wales were heard in their Senedd today. I do want to be clear, though, that there will be some Opposition that remains to this policy, and I'm sure the petitioner will be doubtful of today's outcome. I know the Minister tried to address some of the key points in the petition, as did Jane Dodds. So, the challenge—and Llyr spoke about the challenge to the Deputy Minister—is to hear those voices from the people of Wales, to work with people and their concerns, in that partnership approach, as Carolyn Thomas said.

Communication will be key, I think, as Jane Dodds has said. I also hope we have pushed that message further forward where there is an exemptions process. So, if 30 mph would be more suitable for specific roads, then there is a way to make that happen. The Minister said he understood the concerns about the exemptions process from, particularly, Llyr, Hefin and I, and Carolyn as well. He went on to read the latest exemptions guidance that local authorities have in front of them, and urged local authorities to take a commonsense approach, perhaps, rather than being risk averse, which is their natural position.

But I want to come back to where I opened today's debate and encourage the Minister, again, if local authorities recognise that there needs to be more guidance, strengthened guidance, to make sure they have that confidence in making those exemptions, where local people and local communities have voiced concerns, to further work with them again before 17 September to ensure and give absolute assurances and clarity to them that they can make exemptions where the local communities have addressed.

Llywydd, on that, I'll say 'thank you' again to you and the Business Committee for making sure that we brought this forward early, ahead of the change, so that people could have their voices heard in their Parliament. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the petition. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed and the petition is noted.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.