Now questions from the party leaders. The UKIP group leader, Caroline Jones. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the plans for the new Wales and borders franchise are very promising and a clear demonstration of what can be achieved by a true public-private partnership. The investment that will be pumped into our rail network over the next decade could not be achieved by the public sector alone. The biggest transformation will be in the south-east of Wales, with the metro delivering better transport links for our capital city. I hope the investment, though, will deliver improvements for the whole of Wales.

I note from the Cabinet Secretary's statement that the north-east metro is to be accelerated. What about the rest of north Wales? Will we see an end to situations that we saw when the cancellation of services between Llandudno Junction and Blaenau Ffestiniog were apparent?

There are structural issues on the Conwy valley line, given the fact that it often floods, and we've seen that over the—. Well, not often; it has sometimes flooded over the past few years, and that is something for Network Rail to deal with in order to avoid that in the future. She asked, 'What will the rest of Wales see?' Better services on every railway line in Wales; more frequent services from Llandudno, as well, for example; we've already mentioned the Wrexham-Bidstone line; a proper hourly service on the central Wales line; more services on the Cambrian Coast line; station upgrades—the introduction of Bow Street station, an upgrade at Machynlleth together with the guarantee of the future of the loco sheds there; if we come down further south, an extra train on the Heart of Wales line; station improvements in Llanelli, in Carmarthen; more frequent services between Swansea and Fishguard Harbour. These are some examples of what will be done across the whole of Wales to ensure that everybody benefits. 

Thank you very much. Thank you for highlighting how the whole of Wales will benefit. 

Staying with the new franchise, I'm glad to see the commitment to retaining onboard toilets on all existing trains, and I hope that they will be fully accessible. There was little in the Cabinet Secretary's written statement about the accessibility of rail services other than on the south-east metro. We have to put an end to the situation whereby disabled passengers have to pre-plan and pre-book their journeys. Disabled passengers have been left stranded on trains, have been refused travel on trains, and that's if they can get access to the trains in the first place. Sixty-one of our train stations are defined as poor for accessibility in that they have no staff or insufficient wheelchair access or totally unsuitable wheelchair access. So, First Minister, what improvements will the new franchise agreement deliver to disabled passengers in Wales?

Fifteen million pounds has been allocated to improve accessibility, and every station on the franchise network will be made accessible.

Thank you for that, First Minister. The new franchise holders, KeolisAmey, have indicated that half of all new trains will be assembled in Wales, and I ask: will they be built with Welsh steel? With the Trump administration's tariffs on steel, the Port Talbot steelworks stand to lose 10 per cent of their business, and with the electrification to Swansea abandoned, and it being all but abandoned with the tidal lagoon, if the steel sector is to get support in Wales, then it needs to come from Wales. So, what discussions have you had with the franchisees about using Welsh materials in addition to a Welsh workforce in the construction of new rolling stock for the Welsh rail network, the north-east metro and the south Wales metro? Thank you.

We would encourage, of course, there to be as much sourcing of Welsh steel as possible. She has also raised two other important points in terms of steel tariffs and also the tidal lagoon. I can inform Members that I have written today to Greg Clark and suggested to him that the UK Government should make an offer in terms of the contract for difference to the tidal lagoon on the same terms as they made the offer to Hinkley. If it's right for Hinkley, it's right for Swansea. And she's right to point out that electrification was promised and then reneged on by the UK Government. The tidal lagoon has been talked down by the Secretary of State this morning and by others. Well, we have put money on the table and we have said today, 'Treat the tidal lagoon in the same way as you treated Hinkley.' We ask no more than that, and we believe that it would be possible for the tidal lagoon to move ahead on that basis. We await the UK Government's response with regard to that.

In terms of steel, there are two issues with steel. Firstly, of course, the tariffs that the US has imposed will create a situation where Welsh steel will become more expensive in the US market. What is not clear is whether that would in fact lead to a decrease in demand, given the fact that so much of the steel is not made in the US and has to be bought from outside anyway. Okay, we don't know what the effect of that will be, but of great concern as well is where the steel that was originally bound for the US market will end up. If it comes to Europe, it will create a glut of steel in Europe, the price will drop, and that will not be of benefit to the Welsh steel producers. So, I have said—I was in Washington and met with people there at the end of last week—that it's also important that the European Union now takes prompt steps, within weeks, not within months, to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that the price of steel is supported in Europe. 

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. How much profit are KeolisAmey expected to make out of Welsh rail passengers during the next 15 years?

Well, there are, of course, commercial matters that the leader of Plaid Cymru will be aware of. What I can say, however, is that for £150 million, KeolisAmey will deliver a rail franchise for Wales and the borders below the current cost of £185 million. It's a total investment of £738 million as well on phase 2 of the metro, and what we will see is, for the first time, a rail system that the people of Wales deserve and not the cast-offs of other networks. 

First Minister, there's been talk of this 3 per cent cap on profits, and if that is true, that is no cap at all. Because according to the rail industry's own trade body, the Rail Delivery Group, the average operating profit for a rail company is 2.9 per cent. So, this means that your cap is higher than the average profit margin for train companies. Putting that aside, the Wales and borders franchise doesn't commercially make a profit, so the only way that any rail company makes money is through Government subsidies. That means, First Minister, that you are paying profits out of our budget to the pockets of private shareholders.

Secondly, the idea that you won't pay a company if it doesn't meet its targets is hardly some kind of radical socialist policy because nobody pays for work that hasn't been done—it's as simple as that.

Now, page 20 of the manifesto on which you were elected promised that you would deliver a not-for-profit rail operator. You have failed—you've done the exact opposite. So, can you explain: if you believe that the only way to deliver a rail service that works for people in Wales is through a not-for-profit operator, why have you lumbered us with a second-rate private rail service for the next 15 years?

Talking Wales down—talking Wales down yet again. Of all the people who have commented yesterday, the only party who have said 'This is a bad idea. It's going to be a second-rate network' is Plaid Cymru—it's The Party of Wales, apparently, who are saying this. 

Now, there are legitimate questions, I understand that in terms of the way it works, but saying it's a second-rate network is simply not true. Have a look at what is being proposed for Wales and bear in mind that the delivery cost is a good £30 million below the current cost. So, actually, this is far better value for money than the current system with Arriva. She asks the question again: why is it not the case that this was set up as a not-for-profit—why is it not the case that a public sector operator is running the service? Because the law says so. That's why. She can't do it—your party can't do it. The reality is: she is saying to the people of Wales, 'We would have done something that actually we know legally we can't do', and that's not a particularly credible position, I would suggest.

For goodness' sake, let's all celebrate the fact we have an excellent rail service that is going to be set up across the whole of Wales, people will benefit from good value, new trains, air conditioning—all delivered by a Welsh Government working for the people of Wales.

First Minister, a cap of 3 per cent will see profits to KeolisAmey in the region of between £100 million and £150 million from this contract. Whether you pay them now or in five years' time means that the Welsh taxpayer is putting money in the pockets of private company shareholders instead of reinvesting it back in our own rail network. That's £150 million that could have been spent on better trains, on more stations, on cheaper tickets.

Now, the Scotland Act 2016—[Interruption.]—contained a clause that explicitly allowed for the Scottish Government to procure a public sector rail operator. [Interruption.] One year later—

I do need to hear, and I'm sure the First Minister needs to hear, the leader of Plaid Cymru. So, can we please allow Leanne Wood to continue—please. Please.

Diolch, Llywydd. One year later, there was no such clause in the Wales Act of 2017. Despite this, your Government obediently voted to accept this new devolution deal from your friends in the Conservative Government at the UK level. Now, Plaid Cymru didn't dance to Westminster's tune. Plaid Cymru voted against that Bill. First Minister, do you now regret backing the Tories by voting for the deficient Wales Bill?

Just over two years ago, we all sat in this Chamber and watched Plaid Cymru actively canvass the support of the Tories in order for the leader of Plaid Cymru to become the First Minister. [Interruption.] And now she lectures us about working with the Tories. Memories are incredibly short on the Plaid Cymru benches. If she asks me, 'Am I happy with every element of the last Wales Act?, the answer is 'no'. Of course it's 'no'. There are some elements of it that I don't like. But most of it is something that I think was worth supporting. I don't take the absolutist view that she takes of, 'Let's jump off the edge of the cliff and let's see what happens.' The reality is that there's more work to be done on devolution. We know that. I know she knows that.

But what we have delivered, in the constraints that we have, is a better value, better system that the people of the Valleys will support and the people of the whole of Wales will support. It will deliver a first-rate railway system for Wales—a first-rate railway system—the best rail system that has ever been produced for Wales, a system that will deliver the best trains, a system that will provide jobs for Newport—for CAF, with 300 jobs there—a system that will ensure that we meet our targets in terms of sustainability, in terms of job creation, in terms of economic growth. Why on earth can't Plaid Cymru just for once support something that is good for Wales?

Leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I find myself with a group that's stuck in the middle here. Very often, it's good to be in the middle ground of politics, I find. So, I'll leave the extremists to debate amongst themselves on this.

First Minister, what is the Welsh Government's position when it comes to a second referendum, either on the deal that's negotiated around Brexit or on rerunning the referendum of June 2016?

We don't have a position on a second referendum. If you want my view, I do not believe a second referendum on the issue of Brexit is merited. There's been a referendum. Although, his party wanted a second referendum on devolution in 2005—I remember that—because they thought the result was too close. But I don't take the same view in that regard. So, we don't have a position as a Government. I think what's important now is to focus on getting the best deal for Wales and Britain as a result of Brexit.

Did I hear you correctly there First Minister? You said you do not have a position as a Government. Because, obviously, two of your Cabinet colleagues signed a letter last week indicating that they wanted to see a referendum. I always assumed that Government operated on collective responsibility, and I have certainly heard you say on several occasions as leader of the Welsh Government that you do not support a second referendum. So, surely, there is collective responsibility, and Cabinet colleagues now, after you've signalled that you are leaving the office of First Minister, are running their own agendas. Why is collective responsibility not running on this particular issue? 

I can't believe that he's chosen this ground to ask questions. Let's see, for example, the situation that happens in Whitehall? If you want to see a lame duck leader, have a look at Whitehall. What do we have there? We have factions briefing against each other in public. We have people like Boris Johnson openly criticising the Prime Minister about Brexit policy without any kind of penalty. He'd have been out on his feet if he'd have been in my Government, I can tell you that now. We now have this farce where a decision has been taken on Heathrow where carte blanche has been given to Cabinet Ministers to campaign against that, because there's not enough support in Cabinet to take a collective decision. And when it comes to collective responsibility, we are solid here compared to the anarchist collective that exists in London.  

First Minister, I notice you didn't address my question about your own Government, and it was only some months ago that you sacked the Member for Cardiff Central from her role as Government oversight on the European committee because she didn't agree with Cabinet responsibility, as you interpreted it, because you said that her letter of appointment had collective responsibility attached to it. So, you sacked one of your backbenchers, but when one of your Liberal colleagues in the Cabinet or one of your leadership contenders here decides to break ranks with collective responsibility, you do not take any action at all. Is it not the case that it is one rule for one member of the Government and another rule for backbenchers, and you are the lame duck First Minister?   

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Well, let's just examine that. As I've said—[Interruption.] As I've said—[Interruption.] I mean, you've got to admire his brass neck. You've got to admire his brass neck more than anything else, and his ability to ignore the chaos that his party has created in London, and the fact that Cabinet Government as we know it doesn't exist, actually, in Whitehall under his party.

He asked the question: what's our view? Our view has always been, and I've said this many, many times in the Chamber, that any deal should be approved by the Parliaments—plural—of the UK. That's the situation. If that doesn't happen, well, it could well be there's another election. There would have to be another election. If there is then an inconclusive result, there'd have to be some way of settling it, but we're some way away from that. So, our view as a Government is quite simply this: let the Parliaments of the UK decide as to whether the final deal is a good one or not. 

I come back again to his point. There's an element of incredible double standards in the Tory party, and let me say why. I don't advocate a second referendum on Brexit. I don't advocate that, because I remember his party saying in 1997 that the result of the devolution referendum was too close that there needed to be another referendum, and they stood on that manifesto commitment in a general election. And now they say, 'Well, of course, that was then, this is now.' I don't have that double standard; I argued against a second referendum then, I argue against a second referendum now on the issue of Brexit. When he wants to lecture us about our position, he needs to take a long hard look at his own party and the mess that the leader of the UK is in, the complete lack of planning, the complete lack of unity and the complete lack of a Government.