Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Does the First Minister agree that, quite clearly, there is a power grab going on by Whitehall on the EU withdrawal Bill?

I think that was the case, but the agreement that we have reached now with the UK Government has avoided that.

It's absurd and embarrassing in equal measure that this Government chooses to endorse Theresa May rather than their own party leader. It's difficult to find any real benefits to exiting the EU, but there was one tiny sliver of positivity—[Interruption.]—

Can I hear the leader of Plaid Cymru, please? The question needs to be asked, please.

There was one sliver of positivity in that more decisions about Wales would be made in Wales, we were promised. That glimmer of hope has now gone. So, First Minister, tonight we will vote to accept this disastrous Brexit Bill. You can choose who to back: Plaid Cymru, the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish and English Liberal Democrat parties, the Green Party, the Scottish Government, legal and constitutional experts, or your own party leader. Not even a single one of the six tests set up by this Assembly's own cross-party external affairs committee is met by this deal. The list goes on. Or you can back the Conservative and Unionist Party and UKIP. Who is it going to be?

Well, this is Wales, and, as Welsh Labour, we, in Government, have negotiated hard to get the best deal for Wales, which we believe we have achieved. What happens in Scotland and England is a matter for Scotland and England. That is what devolution is about. I note the support we received from the Confederation of British Industry and the report that we received from the Institute of Directors, and I am still not clear what the position of the leader of Plaid Cymru is when she says that, somehow, powers are being taken away from Wales. All 64 areas will return to Wales when we leave the EU. There will be some powers that, by agreement, will then be kept in the freezer. Every Government in the UK will be in the same position; they will not be able to legislate until such time as there is agreement to take those powers out of the freezer. That is a huge change from where we were last year when all powers would have gone straight to Westminster, where Ministers in Westminster would have had unlimited powers in terms of sunset clauses, and they would've determined when and if powers came to this Assembly and this Government. We've moved a huge way since then, which is why we are the party of devolution.

Can you tell us, then, what extra powers have been delivered by this deal? Because when our steel industry needed Westminster's intervention, they were nowhere to be seen. When our family farms need the support to sustain their business, do you trust Westminster to be there? When our environment is being laid to waste, do you trust Westminster to be there? That's what this deal means. Westminster, and not Wales, will decide on issues that matter to people's lives here in Wales. Llywydd, the very principles of devolution are at stake with this. So, First Minister, now that you know the facts, now that all the players have shown their hands, what will it be? Are you going to stand up for Wales or for Westminster?

I will always stand up for my country. It may be that others will take a different view on what's best for Wales, but I respect their views and I trust that the views of those on these benches will be respected as well, because they weren't last week. I have to say, as far as I am concerned—she mentions steel—we worked to save our steel industry. We did that with the powers that we have and we did that by working with Tata and putting a financial package on the table. With regard to farming, we need to see the colour of Westminster's money, that much is true, because we can't pay farming subsidies. It's hugely important that an equivalent sum of money is put into a pot at the UK level and distributed in the same way as it is now until such time as there is agreement to change the way money is spent and allocated. That much is very, very true.

But, as far as this agreement is concerned, there are restraints on the UK Government that are equivalent to any restraints there would be on Welsh Government. We are in a situation now where we are all in the same situation. There's great pressure on us all to come to agreed frameworks well before seven years, because England is now in the same situation as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And so—[Interruption.] It is exactly the same situation as Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. So, we've come to a position where a UK Government, a year ago, were saying—and I'm not sure the situation would be different if they had a majority of 100 in the House of Commons—'All powers will come to us. We will determine when and if they come to the devolved administrations.' That has changed; those powers will come to us. We will agree how they are frozen, we will agree the frameworks and then, of course, we will all be on a level playing field across Governments in the UK. This is the first time that the UK Government has ever agreed to be bound in this way, and that is a tribute to the negotiating skills of Mark Drakeford.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's not very often I start First Minister's questions by saying I agree with the First Minister, and he might not want that type of praise from the leader of the opposition here in the Senedd.

I'd like to ask you about the rail franchise, First Minister, and the tendering exercise that is under way at the moment. Obviously, there is huge anticipation of the improvements that people want to see in the rail franchise. I think, across the Chamber here, people generally recognise that the last 15 years have been difficult, shall we say, because the last franchise that was awarded had zero growth built into it. You yesterday, at the opening of the new station at Bridgend and the subsequent journey you took, said that it is doubtful that there will be any real improvements until at least four years into the franchise. Those were your words. Back in June last year, the Cabinet Secretary, in responding to the committee report that looked into this, talked of there being very early improvements in the next rail franchise. Why is there now the difference in timelines for seeing the improvements that passengers, politicians and businesses want to see, because your assessment yesterday has those improvements coming at nearly a third into the life of the next franchise?

No, what I said was that people will start to see improvements in services very soon, certainly over the course of next year. But, in terms of new trains, well, clearly, they take time to procure and build, and, in terms of electrification, for example, in terms of new trains, in terms of looking to extend the current network, well, of course, that would take us into the early part of next year. People will begin to see changes early, but the step change will come, I suspect, in around about four or five years' time when people will see the roll-out of new trains and new modes of traction.

I think the language you used yesterday did confuse the situation for many people, because we were led to believe that the change would come in the very early years, but I'm glad of the clarification you've given. The Cabinet Secretary in February indicated that the announcement as to the winner of the tendering process would be made now in May of this year. I don't see anything on the forward outlook for next week on any announcement that's to be made. Is the First Minister able to confirm that the announcement will still be made in May as to who will be the preferred bidder and, actually, that the franchise will begin in October of this year, as the original timeline identified?

I can confirm there is no delay to the process, and we want to make the announcement as soon as possible.

So, on that timeline that I just asked you about, i.e. the announcement on the preferred bidder will be made in May of this year and, obviously, in October the actual franchise will begin, and given the difference in interpretation of improvements, i.e. the major improvements in five or four years' time, what can you also identify as being the quick wins that can be identified for early improvements? Can I ask you just to confirm that the timeline is still being stuck to on the franchise, with an announcement this month, which it would be pleasing to have in this Chamber, bearing in mind that the last week of May is the half-term recess, so that we can question the Cabinet Secretary and understand exactly what's happening?

I can confirm that. In terms of what people will see immediately, well, what we would look to see are new services and more frequent services, although not to say, obviously, with new trains at that stage. There's then the question of electrification and how that's rolled out, and then new trains being procured as a result of the electrification. So, people will see changes when the franchise is tendered, but the major changes are bound to come a few years down the line, as we look at changing the nature of the lines through electrification and as we look at new rolling stock. That's when people will start to really see a big difference in the quality of the trains.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Important as are the constitutional issues raised by the leader of Plaid Cymru, they're always likely to be of less immediate concern to the average person in the street than issues such as the health service, and last week, in answer to the leader of the opposition, First Minister, you were unable to give him the assurance that Betsi Cadwaladr health board would be out of special measures by the time your term as First Minister comes to an end. The Tawel Fan report referred to the difficulties involved in the creation of Betsi Cadwaladr in the first place, and that said that organisational developments on that scale normally take between five and seven years to accomplish. In the light of the Deloitte report, which was commissioned by the Welsh Government, which said that 

'change management arrangements...are not fit for purpose and remain a significant obstacle towards delivering sustainable change', can the First Minister tell us whether he thinks that there is the right culture, still, within Betsi Cadwaladr, and whether their use of personnel is sufficiently good so that it can ever pull itself out of special measures?

I believe it can pull itself out of special measures. It's not there yet. I've never been somebody who would put an artificial timetable on when it should come out of special measures. I think it's important that it comes out of special measures when the time is appropriate and right. When that is, we would have to take a judgment at the time. There are challenges for Betsi Cadwaladr as a result of what was in the Tawel Fan report, that much is true, and they will need to meet those challenges, but I don't think, for example, another reorganisation of the health service in the north of Wales would be the answer. I think stability is crucial for the next few years.

I understand the point that the First Minister makes, and I've got a great deal of sympathy with it, but the Deloitte report notes a number of worrying, long-term systemic weaknesses, which will need to be addressed if the delivery of health services in north Wales is to be significantly improved. For example, in relation to the transformation groups that are supposed to deliver the improvements that we all want to see, the objectives are said to be poorly defined; group leaders don't yet appear to be clear on accountability outside their own divisions, and are yet to deliver any tangible outcomes; service improvement members of staff are said to be overly junior; there's a lack of in-depth analysis and benchmarking; there is concern about the project management office, over whether the skill set actually exists to address the transformation agenda; and in responding to a question from Deloitte on whether there is sufficient project management capability and capacity to support delivery across the financial plan, the majority of managers, finance directors and members of the central finance function teams said that they either could not say or they disagreed. So, are we actually in a position at the moment where we can say we've even begun this improvement plan to any significant degree?

There have been performance improvements, but there is some way to go, and the leader of UKIP is correct in identifying the weaknesses that still need to be addressed, which is why Betsi Cadwaladr will remain in special measures until such a time as we can be assured as a Government, and indeed that the Assembly can be assured, that it's able to stand on its own two feet again.

There were some damning comments in the Deloitte report about leadership in Betsi Cadwaladr, specifically: executive directors operating in silos; a lack of joint corporate ownership and accountability; the chief operational officer's portfolio was said to be too large for a single individual, managing a budget of over £800 million a year; other executive directors still establishing their portfolios; a lack of granular understanding that the actions of the health board will need to deliver to ensure financial stability. Given that continued indictment, is there not a case for the Welsh Government getting even further involved in the process of transformation than it is already, and that the current leadership team within Betsi Cadwaladr simply have a task that is too great for them to achieve within the limitations of the administrative structure of Betsi Cadwaladr and the budget that they have available to them?

No. I think it is right to say that the situation in Betsi Cadwaladr is such that the new structure is not yet bedded in, which is why, of course, it's still in special measures, which is why I've always been absolutely firm in saying that it will remain in special measures until such a time as it's able to leave. If I were to say, for example, 'Well, it will leave special measures by x date', well, inevitably, I think that would take some of the positive pressure off in terms of making sure that the health board is fit for purpose in the future, and I don't intend to do that. Working with the board, we intend to make sure that the board looks to a situation where it's able to run itself outside of special measures in the future.