Questions from the party leaders and their representatives. The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I was encouraged when I heard that the First Minister was leaving the country, in particular because of what he said at the same time, that America was Wales's most important business partner and there are exciting opportunities that lie ahead and he was going to the United States to press the case for developing a free trade agreement between our countries. Unfortunately, the leader of the opposition at Westminster immediately torpedoed those laudable aims by saying that Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union, which, as we know from Mr Barnier, would not include any cherry-picking by the UK Government, and, as we'd be out of the EU, of course, we wouldn't have anything more than the right to be consulted. How can these two conflicting positions of the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the opposition at Westminster now be reconciled? 

Well, I don't think they are conflicting at all, because, of course, the First Minister was speaking about the potential for a free trade deal between the UK as a whole and the USA and, as we've explained on numerous previous occasions, in the sort of customs union that we envisage the UK would conduct parallel negotiations with third countries to those undertaken by the EU 27. Our talks with the US and the EU are currently in abeyance. These will undoubtedly come back on to the agenda in the coming years. It's obviously nonsensical to exclude ourselves from one of the most powerful trading blocks in the world on the basis of some dogmatic political belief. 

It's clearly impossible under EU law for any member state to conduct trade negotiations with a third country, because all that is reserved to the Commission in Brussels, so the Labour Party's position is totally incoherent.

But I was also encouraged by what the First Minister said that, 

'I want to reassure...the United States that Wales remains an outward looking and welcoming country.'

Unfortunately, that laudable statement was also undermined by the shadow foreign secretary at Westminster, Emily Thornbury, who described Mr Trump as an asteroid of awfulness that has fallen on this world. She said, 

'I think that he is a danger and I think that he is a racist.'

I'm delighted that Welsh Labour's true face is on display today, agreeing with sentiments that can only do damage to the interests of the United Kingdom and the interests of the people of Wales. If the First Minister is serious about wanting to engage the Trump administration and investors from the United States in the possibilities and potential of our country here, then it pays generally in diplomacy to be nice to people rather than to insult and abuse them. 

Well, I'm very glad to hear Neil Hamilton's idea of appeasement, which is not my idea of appeasement. There is a huge difference between the presidency of the United States and the United States as an entire country. The First Minister and the Labour Party have been extremely clear about the position on the customs union. We have made it explicit that it's in Wales's best interest to remain inside the customs union and actually, indeed, inside the single market. The FM could not have been more clear in that regard. 

Well, clarity of that kind is normally to be found only in the pages of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, because you can't be inside and outside at the same time. 

The First Minister, I see, intends, in the course of his visit, to talk to Hillary Clinton. Nothing wrong with that in itself but, as Hillary Clinton actually lost the election for the presidency to President Trump, wouldn't it actually have made more sense to try to meet with people in the Trump administration rather than the candidate for the party that lost the election the last time the presidency was up for grabs? 

The leader of UKIP makes his usual nonsensical alignment between two completely different things. Of course, the First Minister is conducting a series of important negotiations with a range of investors right across the United States and Canada, as it happens, in the best interests of this country. Of course, he will be meeting with Hillary Clinton and a range of other people who have an interest in continuing our good relationship.  

On behalf of the leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. 

A few moments ago, leader of the house, you said that the First Minister had been very clear on the customs union issue. I beg to differ, so I'll keep my first question very simple: does your Government favour staying in the EU customs union or a customs union? 

I think it's very important that we maintain an open mind during the negotiations with the EU and therefore we need to have a customs union of one sort or another. If that turns out to be the customs union as a result of the negotiations, well that would be very interesting, but, in the spirit of a negotiation, of course we have to keep everything on the table. 

I'm afraid to say that's a regression from the position taken by this Government some months ago. The joint White Paper 'Securing Wales' Future' concludes that Wales and the UK should remain in the EU customs union, and I quote:

'we'— that's you and us—

'are unconvinced that the possible benefits of withdrawing from the EU Customs Union outweigh the costs.'

In fact, every single reference to 'customs union' in Government policy since is to the existing customs union. There's not a single reference to a new, as yet non-existent type of customs union. So why, I ask, has the First Minister changed his tone or changed his language? Why does he now talk about 'a' customs union, as do you? Is it because the position as outlined by Jeremy Corbyn is at odds with what's in the interests of Wales and the people of Wales, and for want of a better term, the First Minister is therefore having to fudge it?

No, I disagree entirely. I think it's a very sensible point to make that we need to be in a position to negotiate the very best possible deal for Wales and for the UK as a whole, as part of these negotiations in leaving the European Union. Therefore, we need to try and negotiate the best possible deal. I personally think that the best possible deal is the current state of play. I'm a remainer, I make no bones about it. But clearly, in a negotiation, we need to get the best deal, and a negotiation is a two-way street, and we have to see what's on the table from the other side and what their negotiation stance is. So, it would be ridiculous to rule out all other options.

But what I don't understand is if you were happy as a Government to set out with us what our position was when this document was published, why is that still not the case now? I want to work together on this. I'm really proud that through the work that's been done by Steffan Lewis more than anybody on our side—it's good to see Steffan with us today—we have been able to bring Government towards us on some of these core issues, and will continue to try to do so. 

Now, apart from the customs union issue, I think Jeremy Corbyn's Labour position has another fundamental error, in that he is committed to pulling out of the single market. He wants to pick and choose aspects of that market, but President Tusk, as we know, has said that there can be no cherry picking, and no single market à la carte. The solution is that we need both: customs union and single market. Jobs in Wales need both customs union and single market. The port of Holyhead in my constituency, our constituents, all of us, need both. It feels as if, at every corner, the Welsh position is being undermined and undercut by the whims of Westminster, and by that I mean the whims of Government and opposition at Westminster. You know that the position I have set out, that Plaid Cymru has set out, makes sense. Will you help us deliver it?

We've been very clear as a Welsh Government, and indeed, in co-operation with Plaid Cymru, about the very best possible outcome for Wales, and we're still very clear about that. But I reiterate what I said: this is a negotiation. It is about getting the best out of the negotiation overall. So, if you rule everything out except the position you start from, that's not a negotiation, and you're very likely to fail. 

So, I think it's a very sensible thing to have a range of options on the table that you can start the negotiations with. It remains to be seen where the negotiations will end up. I personally still believe that staying inside the European Union as a whole is the best option for Wales. That's not something the people voted for, and we're in a position of having to negotiate the best deal we can short of that.

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, just before we started today, a letter came from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport highlighting the Government's intention to have a vote on the M4 relief road, and I welcome that movement on behalf of the Government. In the letter—it's three paragraphs long, so it's not particularly long—it indicates that the Cabinet Secretary is seeking legal advice as to the timing of the debate. So, I'm assuming that the Government have set their mind on what type of debate you will be bringing forward for Members to vote on. Will it a 'to note' debate, will it be a budget vote or will it be a more substantive vote around the inquiry itself? Because as I said, the letter clearly indicates it's more of a timing issue, and the Government is quite clear as to the type and nature of debate that we will be able to vote on. I'd be grateful for some clarity on that particular issue.

Well, yes, as I said earlier on in answer to the question, we've confirmed we'll bring forward the debate in Government time on the M4 corridor around Newport, following the conclusion of the public local inquiry. The debate is likely to be a 'to note' debate at this point in time, but I'm hesitant to say that categorically because we don't yet know the outcome of the public inquiry. So, until we know the outcome, we don't really know what we can form the debate around. So, I'm prepared at this point to give an indication, but I can't be categoric about it because, until we know the outcome of the public inquiry, we are not in a position to be categoric about it.

In fairness, I'm basing my questions on the letter, obviously, and the letter indicates that the Government has set its mind on the type of debate we'll be voting on. It doesn't tie into the public inquiry, it talks more about the timings of the debate based on legal advice. But, you do indicate that it doesn't seem as if it's in the Government's mind at the moment to bring forward a budget vote or an allocation of resources to this project. As you said earlier, it is a 'to note'. Because there's quite a difference, there is, for Members to vote on. Given this is the largest capital project that the Welsh Government will be bringing forward, I think it's important for us to understand exactly what the Government is proposing. So, can I just be crystal clear: you are at the moment minded that that vote will be a 'to note' vote?

Yes, currently, we are minded that it will be a 'to note' debate, but I want to reiterate that until we see the outcome of the public inquiry and the consequent legal advice and so on it's impossible to be categoric. So, I'm not in a position to be categoric about it, for the best possible reason, which is that we need to react to it in the light of whatever the outcome of the public inquiry is. So, when we have that then I'll be able to give an indication of what the Government's position is.

I'm grateful for an element of clarity. I appreciate the public inquiry is still ongoing, but obviously I'm basing my questions on the letter that was received by Members on another transport issue that came to light over the recess, which was Abellio's withdrawal from the rail franchise that is currently up for negotiation and tender from the Welsh Government. A bitterly disappointing outcome, obviously. Now, 50 per cent of the bidders have withdrawn from the process. One would ask the question: did the Welsh Government or Transport for Wales work proactively with Abellio to try and resolve the problem around Carillion to keep them in the race for the tender? Because the more ideas, hopefully, the better franchise agreement we will get. And one thing that train users in Wales deserve is a better service than they're getting at the moment. Irrespective of party colour, we can all agree with that, we can.

So, what I'd like is an indication from the leader of the house, if possible, on whether the Government is confident that the two remaining bidders' bids are robust and will go the duration. And, secondly, what clarity can she give around the engagement with Abellio to try and resolve some of the issues they had with the Carillion collapse? Given Carillion's longstanding financial problems that were well understood for many months, was there much engagement from Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government to try and facilitate them staying within the tendering process?

Yes, we worked very hard to keep them inside the procurement. The leader of the opposition is absolutely right: it's better for us to have the widest range of possibilities open to us in terms of the procurement. So, a lot of very hard work took place actually before the Carillion collapse, and after it, to keep them in the procurement. However, we've still got two very robust tenderers to go ahead with and we're very confident that we will get a good outcome for the citizens of Wales, which I completely agree with him that they richly deserve.