Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I welcome everyone back after the summer recess?

The Welsh Government is bringing forward one of its most contentious policies—the 20 mph default speed limit. That is within your manifesto, First Minister—I accept that—and it's within the gift of the Government to bring that forward because it has the votes within this Chamber. But, clearly, there are many people who have strong reservations about the impact of this 20 mph default speed limit. What assessment will the Government commit to making, when this speed limit comes in, of the impact that it will have on the economy—your own papers show a £4.5 billion impact; at the top rate it's £8.9 billion—and ultimately the ability to hit the goals that you have set that will take down casualty rates and accident rates in sensitive areas? 

Well, Llywydd, the Leader of the Opposition is right—this was a manifesto commitment of my party. It's been in the programme for government ever since the new Senedd term began, and this Government will keep its promise to people in Wales to bring about this reform. We will, of course, just as we have with the minimum unit pricing, have independent evaluation of the impact of this policy. The prospective evaluation showed that it would save up to 10 lives every year and up to 20,000 accidents over a 10-year period, and that the NHS would save £92 million every year as a result of the reduced casualties from road traffic accidents that this policy will help to promote. We will have an independent evaluation of that, of course, and, just as we published the interim evaluation of the minimum unit pricing, we will put into the public domain the result of the evaluations that we will commission.

One of the things that has been highlighted, First Minister, is the knock-on effect this will have on emergency services. The ambulance service, for example, have said that, in their working plan and management tool, ambulances can only travel at 20 mph over the speed limit. So, whereas in a 30  mph zone they can do 60 mph if they're blue-lighting it at the moment, they will be going down to 40 mph. We've seen letters and correspondence from South Wales Police that there will potentially be a knock-on effect. What discussions have the Welsh Government had to change the working framework that the blue-light services will have to operate under so that there will not be an unintended consequence of ambulances being delayed or emergency blue-light services delayed in getting to those vital call-outs that this policy could potentially affect? 

Llywydd, we have those conversations all the time. I don't think that those anxieties are shared by the services either. I think that those anxieties will not be borne out in practice. All our blue-light services are used in Wales to dealing with 20 mph, 30 mph, 40 mph, 50 mph, 60 mph, 70mph restrictions on different roads in different contexts. They manage that perfectly successfully; they will manage this in exactly the same way. 

Well, there have been concerns expressed by those in the emergency services. By your own figures, as well, First Minister, it is recognised that potentially this could have a knock-on effect on economic activity of £8.9 billion. Those are your own figures. The medium range is £4.5 billion. That isn't an inconsiderable sum of money when you are considering the opportunities that will be taken away from the Welsh economy. Twenty mph zones are sensible outside schools, hospitals, care homes and other areas where the argument can be made, but the default position that, obviously, the Government have taken, to have a blanket 20 mph, is the wrong option, First Minister. I urge you, as many people have indicated, that they have not been taken along by this policy—.  The ITV poll today shows over two thirds of the people of Wales do not agree with the policy you've put forward, and, indeed, the former Minister and the Member for Clwyd South has indicated that the Government have failed to take people along on this policy. So, why are you continuing to pursue the policy when it is quite clearly not accepted by the large Majority of the people of Wales, and, ultimately, if you look at surveys from Belfast, the goals that you have set yourselves will not be met? 

Well, there are a whole string of points to be corrected there, Llywydd. We will continue with the policy because the policy was voted for by people in Wales in an election, and I can tell you that any change—any change—in this area is often opposed by people before the change comes about. I am quite old enough to remember the introduction of the breathalyser, when people felt that it was perfectly okay for them to spend the day in the pub and then drive home in the car when they were quite unfit to do so. There was just as much controversy about that as there is about this, as there always is when you bring about change. Once the change is there and people see it operating in their areas, as it has been in the part of Cardiff where I live for a number of years now, then people will see the advantages and I don't believe people will want to return to anything else.

It is not a blanket policy. Let's just make sure that we understand what the policy is. It is a default policy and then local authorities are able to designate roads at a 30 mph speed where it is sensible for them to do so. I've been out as much as I can recently, trying to explain the policy and advocate for it. I don't always do it as eloquently as others, so let me just quote what a different Member of the Senedd said on this in a debate here on the floor of the Senedd:

'It's a common sense and it's a safe move. A person is seven times less likely to die if hit at 20 mph than 30 mph, or 10 times if they're over the age of 60.'

The Member ended by saying:

'The de-facto standard for safer and people-friendly streets is now 20 mph with higher limits only where they can be justified.'

Well, I agreed with what Janet Finch-Saunders said in that debate. It is not a blanket ban. It is the default measure, as Janet said—it is the default position, which local authorities can then override when they wish to do so.

Let me give you the best evidence that there is. Russell George said in his opening question that he hoped that minimum unit pricing would succeed because the evidence from the rest of the world is that it saves lives and it targets those who need that help the most. In Spain, where they have had 20 mph zones for a number of years—[Interruption.] No, 20 mph as their default position, as we will in Wales—the very policy you advocated so eloquently, Janet. There, urban deaths from road accidents have fallen by 20 per cent. The number of cyclists killed in road traffic accidents has been reduced by 34 per cent. I can't imagine that there's anybody on the floor of this Senedd who would think that it was an unfair price to ask somebody to pay to drive a little more slowly, when you know that by doing that you are helping to keep other people alive.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. It's good to be back after the summer recess. It's clear that the high temperatures have told on some. It doesn't surprise me to hear the Conservatives asking questions on the speed limits. They're playing politics, I'm afraid. I do feel, however, that there are some real concerns from people who are supportive of the principle—concerns about how the Government has implemented the change and how broad it is—and I do strongly believe that we will need to review this once we see how it works in practice. We can discuss that a little later this afternoon and tomorrow.

I do agree 100 per cent with the First Minister when he said a few days ago that he didn't need to discuss this issue with Keir Starmer because it is a devolved issue. But there are other issues that the First Minister of Wales should and, indeed, is duty bound to convince Keir Starmer of. One example is the way in which the Conservative Government in London has reduced the Welsh Government's budget by £3 billion. So, in light of the warnings that there will be further cuts—£900 million this year, perhaps—what assurance has the First Minister received from the leader of his party that all of that money would be returned to Welsh Government coffers if the Labour Party were in power in Westminster? Can we have that assurance today?

To start, I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru's leader for what he said about the policy on reducing the maximum speed limit on the roads. The point that he made about the importance of reviewing the policy is a reasonable point. Of course we're going to do that, because when we do something new like that, it's important to learn from the experience and do so across the length and breadth of Wales, and that's what the Welsh Government will do in collaboration with those in local authorities.

As far as Keir Starmer is concerned, of course we are in regular discussion with our colleagues in the UK Labour Party. We understand the circumstances that they will face if and when they become the Government, given the financial mess that they will inherit.

What I say to the Member is instead of asking me speculative questions about what may or may not happen in the future, let's look at what has happened already, because Keir Starmer has made a specific commitment that European funds, as were, will in future be put in the hands of the Welsh Government when they are to be used in Wales. So, that is a very specific commitment; it demonstrates, I think, an understanding on the part of the Labour leadership of where devolved responsibilities properly lie. They will look to strengthen this Senedd and they will look to make sure that we have the resources that we need to discharge those responsibilities. They will have no magic wand on the first day, but they will have a very, very different purpose behind the decisions that they will make and I believe a very, very different relationship with whoever is in Government here.

I think the people of Wales will be looking for assurances that a Labour Government would be restoring funding. We know that governments need resources in order to tackle inequalities and injustice. At the heart of my positive vision for Wales, Government needs resources in order to invest in infrastructure, and so far, the UK Labour Party have shown little interest in doing that. Keir Starmer seems pretty committed to doing whatever it takes to get into Downing Street, but what about the commitment to Wales? There's no commitment to giving Wales its £6 billion fair share of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail funding, no commitment to undoing the real-terms cut in public sector pay, and that's despite the Labour First Minister for Wales saying that he wants both.

After last week's reshuffle, nearly 90 per cent of Labour MPs in Wales hold Shadow ministerial positions, so, after years of the Conservatives letting Wales down, can the First Minister now pledge that, on HS2 and on public sector pay, Keir Starmer will now deliver on his wishes as the leader of the Labour Party in Wales?

The leader of Plaid Cymru knows perfectly well that those are not pledges for me to make. What he is busy doing—let's be clear about the political narrative that he is attempting to build here—is attempting to persuade people that a Labour Government that has not even yet been elected and will only ever be elected because of the efforts of people on this side of the Chamber, and certainly not efforts that he will ever contribute to, has already let them down. That is his attempt. 'Labour will let you down'—that's the narrative he's attempting to manufacture. It won't wash with people in Wales; people in Wales will understand at the election that the main task in front of us will be to elect that Labour Government and the very different prospects for the future that it will bring.

People want governments elected for a reason; it's because they want a change. No pledges there on HS2 or public sector pay, or on increasing the Welsh Government's budget.

Let's turn to what the First Minister and I certainly agree on—that the UK Conservative Government could and should be doing so much more to ease the cost-of-living crisis. I've spelt out some of Plaid Cymru's ideas: a windfall tax on banks; a winter heating payment that doesn't depend on how cold the temperature gets—something introduced in Scotland; and extending the energy Bills support scheme. These are ideas that could really make a difference to the lives of thousands of people in Wales.

But of course, the Welsh Government has things it can do too. We know that spiralling rents are compounding the cost-of-living crisis—and I'm grateful to Carolyn Thomas, Jack Sargeant and Mike Hedges for supporting our recent motion to introduce controls that would cap or stop rent increases. Now is the time to act. And doesn't the First Minister agree that not doing so only reinforces the feeling that the Tories and Labour are too consumed with fighting each other than fighting on behalf of the people of Wales?

I do agree with Rhun ap Iorwerth that increases in rents are of huge concern to people living in the private rented sector, particularly. It's why, in the co-operation agreement, we are committed to finding ways to take action in that area. It is why we have published a white paper on this matter. I understand that, for some people, that seems a laborious process, but, unfortunately, in the real world of government, when you take one set of actions, you have to make sure that you've understood the consequences of them, and not all the consequences may be the ones you looked for or even were expecting.

We know now, don't we, that the Scottish Government's so-called freeze on rents led to a reduction in the availability of private sector properties for rent in parts of Scotland. That wasn't what the policy was intended to do, but it had that effect, and that just meant that it was even harder for people looking for private sector rented properties than it was before the policy was introduced.

I'm very keen that we pursue what is in the co-operation agreement and that we look to see what more can be done in dealing with the difficulties that people are experiencing, but doing it in the way we've agreed through the White Paper, and making sure that we hear from those in the field who will have a more nuanced understanding of how some of those actions will make a difference on the ground, is the right way to do it.