1. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the role of Transport for Wales in the new rail franchise which has been announced today? 178

Yes. Transport for Wales will manage the Wales and borders rail services contract, putting the passenger at the heart of what they do to ensure a customer-focused service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Public Accounts Committee yesterday published a report on the Circuit of Wales project—and there is a link here, Deputy Presiding Officer—which deliberately focused on two very specific areas of scrutiny. The first was the Welsh Government's managerial approach to ensuring that the Circuit of Wales project delivered value for money, and secondly, the Welsh Government's decision-making process that ultimately led to the scrapping of the Circuit of Wales scheme.

Now, that report identified specific failings in relation to the Welsh Government's method for ensuring value for money, including confusion in relation to the complex web of supplier relationships and overall approach to protect management that could have exposed the Welsh Government to undue risk. So, can I ask what new and specific measures were put in place by Ministers, and followed by officials, in order to guarantee that the procurement process to award the new franchise delivers the highest possible value for money for taxpayers? And can you assure us that, like in the case of Circuit of Wales, similar stringent measures have been put in place to protect the Welsh Government from the possibility of legal challenge, following the completion of the tendering process?

There have been some concerns expressed about the transparency in the current process. Now, the Department for Transport publishes the specification that they are asking people to bid against, and on announcement day, they always give an overview of what the new contract will contain, and they have the same 10-day challenge period also. I'd appreciate any comment on that.

Also, 12 months ago, you stated that the benefits of the new franchise would be felt by passengers immediately, and last week, the First Minister stated that improvements resulting from the new franchise would take years. For passengers' sake, I wonder if you could clarify who was right.

And very finally, when do you plan to bring forward a statement to the Chamber, an oral statement, with regard to the new franchise following today's announcement?

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I'm very pleased to inform the Member that, in the last 24 hours, I've spoken with a number of UK Government Ministers who've conveyed their very warm congratulations on what is seen as a huge success for the Welsh Government and for work between Governments in making sure that we can award the next franchise, which the Member, based on a report that his own committee produced, identified as a heroic ambition. That ambition today is being delivered.

But the Member is wrong in a number of respects concerning the process that is being followed right now and in the next 10 days. We have to operate, to law, a 10-day standstill period during which we cannot comment, nor can the preferred bidder. That's because it gives time for the non-preferred bidder to raise a challenge if they so wish. I would dearly love to begin unwrapping the presents today, but the Member and everybody else, including me, will have to show patience over the next 10 days.

I also take issue with the Member for linking today's announcement to a report on the Circuit of Wales project, and specifically with the press release suggesting that individuals within Transport for Wales are not able to manage the franchise because of that very issue. I should point out to the Member that the same officials have delivered record inward investment, they've delivered record employment and they've delivered a record number of business births. They delivered Aston Martin, they helped Cardiff Airport stay open, they helped deliver CAF. They've helped deliver the Newtown bypass. I have every confidence in those officials. I've every confidence in Transport for Wales, and given that they and we have delivered on our heroic ambition today, I think all Members should have confidence in Transport for Wales.

Thank you. Adam Price.

Cabinet Secretary, I can understand why Tory Ministers are congratulating you for slavishly following their privatising agenda, but the fact that we are now poised to hand over responsibility for our national railways to a French-Spanish consortium of transnational corporations is surely not a source of celebration. It's a source of regret and political soul-searching by the Labour Party. Surely, your own manifesto, which I think, Cabinet Secretary, you had a hand in writing, promised that you 

'will deliver a new, not-for-profit, rail franchise from 2018'.

Now, anyone reading that would assume that this is going to be a state-run operator. Well, of course, it is state-run, except it's not the Welsh state—it's majority owned by the French state. The current one, of course, is majority owned by the German state, so I suppose that's some form of progress—is it? Because, what, effectively, we're doing—we are binding the hands, not just of the next administration, but the administration after that, and, indeed, the administration after that.

So, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, you have promised—[Interruption.] Can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, you have promised that the next Labour Government that you're always talking about will change the Railways Act to enable the Welsh Government to have the power to have a public sector operator, so have you done what the Scottish Government has done and introduced a break clause in the contract so that you can, at the earliest possible opportunity, ensure that you deliver on what you promised to have—a not-for-profit operator?

Can we also ask as well, in the event that the contract is handed back, as has happened in a number of cases, will the Welsh Government be the operator of last resort? This is the third time I've asked you that question, Cabinet Secretary, so I would appreciate if you could respond.

I'm pretty astonished by the Member's cheap opportunism today, given that the Member knows full well that the Railways Act 1993 prevents public sector bodies from coming forward to bid directly for a franchise. I'm astonished, because his own Members of Parliament, including his own MP, worked with Labour MPs to bring about an amendment in the Wales Bill, but sadly that amendment was voted down.

I really am tired of the rather hysterical hyperbole relating to this matter. I reflect back on 16 August last year—a very special day for different reasons—when the Member was predicting that we would never be in this place today of having awarded it and would never be in this place that the process that he and his colleagues on the committee had described as heroically ambitious would not be completed. He said that the responsibility for transport should be taken from me, but I'm pretty confident—I'm pretty sure that had the Member been standing where I am today, announcing what I am today, having delivered what everybody around him described as being heroically ambitious, his parliamentary colleague would be starting a petition for a grand bronze to be commissioned in honour of the prophetic son. I'm equally sure that the Member would sign that petition. I can assure the Member that after the standstill period of 10 days, all details will be released. 

I have noticed the press release that has been issued by Plaid Cymru today saying that the bidding process has been flawed from start to finish, and yet the same Member who has this quote attributed to him is part of a committee that described the process as being heroically ambitious. There's something of a schism here. I would agree with the latter, given that we are at the point today of having been able to announce the preferred bidder. The press release goes on to say that it's inexcusable that there should only be a one-page written statement. The whole reason why it's a one-page written statement is that we have to have, by law—not by style, by law—a standstill period. So, I ask the Member, in return: given that it's not a matter of style, that it's a matter of law, would he want to break the law? Would he want to jeopardise the future of the franchise? I can only conclude, I'm afraid, deputy Llywydd, that the Member would prefer the current franchise to continue.

David Rowlands.

No, sorry, Llywydd. I'm sorry.

No? Oh, sorry. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I welcome your statement today, and the south Wales Valleys I think are a hotbed of rail expertise, with many small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in rail engineering, in construction and other maintenance services, with employers who are locally based and often very highly skilled as well. Now, many of these tell me that they spend up to 80 per cent of their time working outside of Wales, with employees living away from home for long periods of time and therefore spending their money outside of the local community as well. Clearly, there are huge economic benefits to be had if companies like these are able to bid into contracts through Transport for Wales, and that local workforces can therefore spend their money more locally. So, my question to you is: what plans does Transport for Wales have to ensure that smaller, local rail companies are able to access some of these contracts and not be submerged by the big companies in this sector?

I'm very pleased to respond to the Member, and I recognise her keen interest in the procurement process and in ensuring that it delivers not just improved rail services but improved economic opportunities, particularly for small and micro-sized businesses in her constituency. I'm pleased that we are currently in the process of identifying opportunities for infrastructure development partners who will work on the south Wales metro. That work continues. I'm confident that we'll be able to ensure that a significant degree of spend in this game-changing project will be delivered for Welsh SMEs, including those in her constituency.

It feels a bit like this Government is lurching from one shambles to another. The Welsh Government has today awarded a £5 billion rail franchise to the majority state-owned French rail company Keolis, and Spanish infrastructure corporation Amey—both for-profit, multimillion-pound international corporations.

Now, I'd like to pick up on a question that has been asked, but hasn't yet been answered. Can the Cabinet Secretary explain how this decision squares with the commitment on page 20 of the 2016 manifesto, on which he was elected, that said a Labour Welsh Government,

'will deliver a new, not-for-profit, rail franchise'?

I believe he even wrote the manifesto. Before there's any claim that the involvement of Transport for Wales will mean that this is a not-for-profit operation, can I just remind him that Keolis made a profit of €313 million in 2016? I think they would be quite surprised to hear that they will not be making a profit from this contract.

Of course, the Cabinet Secretary will argue that his hands have been tied by the Wales Act 2017, and as I'm sure he will remember, Plaid Cymru did not support that legislation. He voted in favour of the Wales Act, however, in the full knowledge that it would preclude him from delivering a not-for-profit franchise. The Scottish Government, under their settlement, can procure a public sector operator. Why has the Welsh Government failed to obtain the same deal as their Scottish counterparts?

The Cabinet Secretary has claimed—

Are you coming to a—? Can you wind up please?

—this for-profit railway will deliver benefits for passengers. Does he accept that it will deliver fewer benefits than a not-for-profit railway? If not, why then did he commit, on multiple occasions, to deliver a not-for-profit railway?

There are many more questions, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I will finish with this. Today, the Labour Party are holding a debate in Westminster on nationalising the railways. His party leader has spoken of a people's railway. He stood on multiple manifestos, promising to deliver a not-for-profit railway. How, therefore, can he justify doing the exact opposite of his party's priorities that he was elected to deliver? Do you—

No, I'm sorry; you've gone on far too long. I'm sorry; that was far too long.

Can I thank the Member for her questions and her speech? I assure her that we have gone as far as possible in delivering on the manifesto pledge, ensuring that where we can operate concessions on a not-for-profit basis, we will do, but ensuring as well, through the competitive dialogue process, that we have an astonishing deal for Welsh passengers. And that's what's of most interest to the people out there—the people who wish to have a relevant debate in this Chamber on the future of services.

I must reiterate the point that her Members—and by the way, I've never served in Parliament—but her Members, behind her, sat on a committee that signed off a report that described this process that you are now criticising as 'heroically ambitious'. Now, the people of Wales can only therefore conclude that, across this Chamber, Members agreed that the way that the Welsh Government was going about procuring a new operator and developer and partner would be heroically ambitious for the people we serve. Today, we have delivered on that, and this is only just the beginning.

I can understand your annoyance at the posturing of Plaid Cymru over this matter, but you probably take some satisfaction from the recognition that what Plaid Cymru say is true, to the extent that we desperately need a Labour Government in Westminster because it's the only way that we will actually be able to abolish section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, which prohibits public ownership—and, of course, the hypocrisy of the Tories, who have nationalised the east coast railway. It's the third time they've re-nationalised it because every time it goes into the private sector, after the private sector fails it goes into the public sector, makes a profit, they privatise it, it loses money, it goes back into the public sector. So, there's total hypocrisy there. But we desperately need that Labour Government in Westminster to do that.

What I was going to ask you, though, Cabinet Secretary: of fundamental importance is the workers in the industry. To what extent have you been able to engage with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and with the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association—the people who will actually be required to work in and to deliver that—that their position will be protected with guards and so on, and on the extent to which they actually welcome this initiative so far? Also, within Transport for Wales, which I very much welcome, coming into Pontypridd to help regenerate the town, to what extent is there the flexibility within the system, when Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister, when we have a Labour Government in Westminster and we've abolished section 25, to bring this and the rest of the railway network into public ownership, with the Labour Party as the only party that is actually able, capable, of delivering that?

Can I thank the Member for his question? The Member is absolutely right. We've worked closely with the RMT and ASLEF and perhaps I can offer some assurance to the Member, and to other Members on opposition benches, who have raised the question of whether the unions support our decision. Well, let me read what Mick Cash has said:

'RMT policy is for a national integrated railway under public ownership, and the Welsh Government has made it clear that this is their aspiration as well if they did not have to work under the pro-privatisation legislative straitjacket imposed by the UK Government.'

He went on to say:

'However, RMT welcomes the fact that despite these constraints the Welsh Government has committed to keep a guard on every train alongside other commitments to work with RMT to protect jobs and conditions of rail workers in Wales.'

This is Welsh Labour working with the unions, working with passenger groups, and delivering the very best for the people of Wales.

Thank you very much. The second topical question this afternoon is to be answered by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. David Melding.