We now turn to spokespeople's questions, and the first spokesperson this afternoon is Russell George. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, a number of weeks ago you stated, in questions, I think it was, from me, that you were due to meet the chief executive of Transport for Wales to discuss with him a number of matters in relation to the new Wales and borders rail franchise. You made clear that one of the issues that you were going to raise with him was details regarding timetabling matters, namely the proposed improvement to services, including those between Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare and Cardiff, and between Llandudno and Chester. Can you update us, Cabinet Secretary, as to the outcome of those discussions with Transport for Wales and in particular the outcome of the discussions with regard to the timetabling?

Yes, I can confirm that I've met now with the chief executive of Transport for Wales on two occasions since I last answered the Member's questions. We covered a great range of issues, including those that he identified. I'd be happy to provide Members with updates not just on the timetabling matters, but also on issues concerning the governance of Transport for Wales, the recruitment process for a chair and also the potential future role of Transport for Wales in terms of delivering on the wider transport agenda.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I was hoping that you might be able to give us some specific answers in terms of the timetabling issues that I've raised today. If you are able to do so, please do so today.

The Government and Transport for Wales have made a number of commitments to rail passengers regarding the delivery of new trains. One of the main complaints, as you will be aware, regarding trains running on Welsh lines has been about trains that are overcrowded, old, unclean and environmentally substandard. You will understand, of course, that passengers are disappointed and frustrated that the same old trains are still in operation now, even though the new franchise era has begun. Can I ask you to make crystal clear when the new trains will finally arrive? Will you also outline a rolling stock strategy so that the public can have the confidence that the new trains will arrive, as promised? And, finally, will you provide an update as to when the tender specification and final contract that we use to deliver the new franchise will be made public? I know you've previously committed to doing this.

Yes, absolutely. The Member raises a number of questions. In terms of the trains, we inherited the trains that had been operated by Arriva Trains Wales when Transport for Wales took over the franchise, but we were also very clear in articulating that there will be £40 million spent on improving those existing trains whilst we await new rolling stock. On new rolling stock, we anticipate delivery by 2021. The first of the new trains will be seen rolled out on the north Wales coast line. There will be a mix of trains built in Wales and built abroad. The procurement exercise identified the best rolling stock for each of the particular routes that are going to be served by the new franchise. In addition to the £40 million that will be spent on improving the existing trains, I'm also pleased that a deep clean of all stations will commence in December of this year, and that, by 2023, every single train on the network will have been replaced. It's also worth pointing out that, over the course of the next 15 years, we will spend almost £200 million improving each and every one of the stations in the franchise network. 

In terms of the other points raised by the Member, I'll happily provide updates on the queries. I'll write to Members with details of the various points that the Member raised.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. I would really appreciate a statement, perhaps, so that we could have some tangible, detailed information in regard to when the trains will arrive, with associated dates. I did ask you as well about the tender process and about the tender specifications in the final contract. If you're able to give an answer on that today—on when you foresee those being publicly available for us to scrutinise—I would appreciate that. 

Many Welsh rail stations are in a very poor state and they have been neglected and had underinvestment for some years. Again, Transport for Wales has recently announced that there would be an investment programme to upgrade Wales's stations as part of the new franchise contract. Can you ensure that Transport for Wales publishes a timetable for station improvements so that rail passengers know exactly when their station is going to be upgraded? Because a theme throughout the questions today is that passengers just want information and communication, and being open and transparent is absolutely key.

I think the Member is absolutely right. Communicating the programme of improvements is essential in ensuring the confidence of passengers can be guaranteed. We've already published the time frame for the rolling out of new trains. However, I would happily recirculate that to Members. I've offered Members in the past a number of workshops with Transport for Wales when they are able to provide the detailed time frame of delivery of the replacement rolling stock, and it's also published online. But I will happily provide a detailed table of all of the replacement and new rolling stock that's going to come into service in the coming five years. And in terms of the tender specification and the contract, we are reaching agreement on how we can suitably publish that. I am keen to make sure that that is in the public domain as soon as possible for the purpose of ensuring that there is transparency and scrutiny.

In terms of the station improvements, we're currently putting together an assessment tool to ensure that we can categorise and prioritise station improvements, and I think it's going to be important, once we've done that, to be able to identify a suitable time frame for those improvements to take place. I've said in the past that £15 million will be made available, for example, for improving access to stations. I'm keen to ensure that we're able to identify those stations that will benefit from that funding and that we are able to identify the period during which they will be improved.

The Member may be aware that we've already published specific dates for certain stations that are being improved, but I think the Member is right, and I'll endeavour to put together a table of all 274 stations that are going to receive an upgrade and improvement. But it's important just to reiterate that those improvements will begin in December of this year with a thorough deep clean.

Thank you. Spokesperson David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, we are of course all aware of the congestion problems at Brynglas tunnels in Newport. Notwithstanding the decision on the black route or otherwise, it is obvious that any intervention will take some considerable time to be effective. What measures is the Cabinet Secretary putting in place to alleviate the problem in the short term?

Well, there are a number of short-term measures that we continue to look at. There are a number of short-term measures that we are already implementing. I think that the additional resource that has been allocated for active travel will improve the availability of safe active travel opportunities within Newport itself, taking traffic from the motorway that doesn't need to be on the motorway, given the substantial number of vehicles using the motorway simply to get from one side of Newport to the other.

Bus reforms and legislation on the bus network will help us to improve the provision of local bus services right across Wales, including in the Newport area, and those reforms will be outlined very soon. So, it's my hope that, through considerable and radical reform of local bus services across the country, we'll be able to encourage more people out of their private vehicles and onto buses, particularly in the more urban areas. 

Funding through the local transport fund can be utilised for creating designated bus and taxi routes, again making the provision and the use of bus services more attractive to people who perhaps would otherwise travel by car, and I'm also keen to go on working with schools and education colleagues in encouraging young people to take part in active travel journeys rather than using private vehicles for the purpose of getting to and from schools and colleges and universities.

In terms of the road network itself, of course we have looked at and implemented variable speed limits in order to ensure that there is a constant flow of traffic, and these improvements have been particularly successful on the M4. It's an intervention that I think motorists value. I think that at the outset perhaps some motorists thought that we were reducing speed limits in order to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Actually, what it was designed to do was to ensure that there is greater consistency in the way that people were driving and that you didn't have stop-start motion on the motorway. So, all of these measures that have already been implemented and that will be implemented will contribute, I hope and believe, to a reduction in journey times.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer, and I recognise the interventions that you talked about. If I can talk about a much more direct intervention, you've just mentioned speed limits, but as someone who faces the congestion on an almost daily basis, it has become obvious to me that speed limitations that are used at certain times actually greatly exacerbate the situation. A speed limit of 40 mph is often in place, especially at peak times. Would the Cabinet Secretary consider re-evaluating this procedure?

Well, we always look at the evidence from the—. It's all computerised, essentially, and this is not carried out by a human being who randomly increases or reduces the speed limit. This is a complex tool that ensures that traffic moves smoothly. One of the major contributing factors to, if you like, phantom traffic jams is people moving from stop to a high speed and then stopping suddenly again. It's effectively the slinky-dog effect. That can cause a phantom traffic jam, which, in turn, causes congestion, which can take a significant amount of time to resolve, and so just having traffic travelling at a consistent albeit lower speed than what the national limit might be does reduce congestion.

It's also important to recognise that motorists who choose to switch lanes regularly also contribute to congestion. Now, in other parts of Wales—notably along the north Wales coast on the A55—we carried out a resilience study that looked at the potential of limiting access to the trunk road for certain slow-moving vehicles at certain times of the day. I would happily review—. If we do implement that particular measure, based on the consultation that will take place, I would happily evaluate that and determine whether such an intervention could also be utilised on other trunk roads, including the M4. I'm determined to make sure that people, whether by private mode or by public transport, are able to get to and from their destinations as quickly as possible, and based on all the evidence available to us, variable speed limits contribute to doing just that.

Again, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer, and I do acknowledge that there is a problem, which you mentioned, with switching lanes, particularly the late lane changes, that is from the Malpas turnoff lane back onto the main carriageway. They pose a very serious problem. But having experienced the approaches under almost all traffic conditions, from light to excessively heavy, I am of the firm belief that two gantries, one before the High Cross turnoff, and another 500 yd further on, giving very clear instructions to move into the appropriate lane for the use of the tunnels, would obviate the need for speed restrictions and thus allow traffic to flow freely. This observation comes from having seen heavy traffic conditions but still free movement of traffic when there is an absence of speed limits. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that much longer tunnels on the continent, often incorporating curves, have a speed limit of 80 to 100 km per hour. Why do we need a 40 miles per hour speed limit on such a short tunnel as Brynglas? Can I urge the Cabinet Secretary to have a proper evaluation of my proposal, which I believe would greatly alleviate the congestion problems at Newport?

I should reiterate again that the 40 miles per hour—or 50, when 50 is introduced—is designed to prevent stop-start traffic. The particular proposal that the Member has suggested I think merits further investigation. I'll certainly ask my transport officials to look at that particular proposal. There are a number of solutions that can be deployed on any given road designed to reduce and eliminate congestion and improve safety, and if the Member has any further suggestions, I'd very much welcome them.

I think it's important as well to recognise the contribution of what the French call, I believe, 'elephant racers' make to congestion on trunk roads—elephant racers being large vehicles overtaking one another and taking up a huge length of road in order to do so, thereby causing all traffic behind to move far more slowly and, in turn, often causing phantom traffic jams. So, again, we are looking at, on the A55, as part of the resilience study, a move to end that form of driver behaviour and to ensure that traffic is flowing as freely as possible. All of these measures together can make an enormous difference. Sometimes, though, motorists do believe that we are making them for reasons other than improving the movement of traffic. I can guarantee to you that first and foremost on our minds is traffic safety, passenger safety, and free flow of traffic.

Thank you. And then spokesperson Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, as you know, the HS2 railway has been designated as a project for England and Wales, even though there isn't a mile of it here in Wales, and even though studies show clearly that it would cost money for the Welsh economy. The designation means that Wales will not have a full Barnett allocation from the original cost of about £55 billion. That would mean Wales would lose about £25 million a year. We're talking now, possibly, about £100 billion for this project—£50 million a year for Wales over a period of about 15 years. That's £750 million. Can you tell us what you and the Welsh Government have been doing to try to get hold of this full Barnett allocation, as Northern Ireland and Scotland are receiving, of course?

Well, can I first welcome the Member to this new position? It's very good to see a fellow north Walian with an economy brief, and I'm delighted that one of his first actions coming into the role was to welcome the announcement of the preferred route for the third Menai crossing, a particularly important infrastructure programme serving his own constituency. His predecessor in the role was very keen to promote, on many occasions, a certain racing track in south Wales. I'm hopeful that the Member will be keen to promote a certain racing track in his own constituency as well—the excellent Trac Môn.

In terms of HS2, I think all of the evidence shows that north-east Wales would be a major beneficiary of that particular investment, provided the right solution is adopted at the Crewe hub. Equally, for many other parts of Wales, and principally south Wales, the impact on the economy could be considerable and could be very negative indeed. That's why we've said to the UK Government that alongside a consequential, we would also wish to see further and greater investment in mitigating the adverse impact on the economy of south Wales, and to ensure that opportunities for the whole of north Wales are maximised, for example, through electrification.

Furthermore, we've pressed the case as well for those trains that would be utilised on the high speed 2 rail service to be built here in Wales. If they were to be built here in Wales, that would provide invaluable work for potentially more than 1,000 people.

Thank you for the kind words, and in reference to north Wales and what's in it for north Wales from HS2, you say it's provided the right connections are made at Crewe. We haven't got the assurances that we need on the connections at Crewe.

To give some perspective about the costs we're talking about here, the first 6.6 miles north out of London is projected to cost £8.25 billion. That's £1.25 billion per mile. You could fully fund the reopening of Carmarthen to Aberystwyth railway line, electrify Cardiff to Swansea, reopen the Gaerwen to Amlwch rail line in my constituency for the cost of a single mile there of HS2, and still have enough change left for a lifetime of sandwiches, no doubt, on a new Transport for Wales buffet trolley.

Now, the Welsh Government has supported the project in the past, despite you yourself quoting the UK Government study that shows a loss of economic activity, in the south, in particular, but that's for the whole of Wales, remember. Can you name another Government that would willingly support a project, knowing that it's costing its own economy and that it'll damage that economy for the long term?

Let's just get a few things straight. The solution at Crewe hub is absolutely essential; this is not a side issue. If the solution at Crewe is not beneficial to north Wales, then that will lead to HS2 having an adverse impact on the north of the country as well as on the south. Now, Wales has already received additional funding over the current spending review period as a result of the increases in the Department for Transport budget, which, in no small part, is due to HS2, and we are making a compelling case for further consequentials to be delivered to us as soon as possible.

I think it's important to say that in rebalancing the UK economy, we need to ensure that we rebalance all of the Welsh economy as well. Many parts of Wales interact very closely with other parts of the UK, principally those border areas. Now, it's essential, therefore, that the UK Government spend that serves the purpose of cross-border economic flow is utilised as much as possible. That means improving the M4 corridor, it means improving the Great Western line, it means improving the north Wales coastline, it means improving that cross-border area in north-east Wales and, of course, between mid Wales and the midlands as well. It means drawing down far more money than has been spent by the Department for Transport on rail services and rail infrastructure in Wales in the future than has been the case in the past.

I note that the particular projects that the Member said could've been paid for by the HS2 programme were all in Plaid Cymru constituencies. I would suggest that it's essential, as we move forward, that we don't seek to identify projects that would only be beneficial to our own immediate areas, and we actually rely on the expert advice of the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, whenever and however possible. That commission is now up and running. I will be seeking advice from that commission. I would urge all Members, given its independence—all Members—to make statements of support for any infrastructure programme based on the evidence that is provided and the advice that is provided by those experts on the commission.

Forgive me for getting up too early; I thought you were never going to stop. You—[Interruption.]

No, I make the decisions on when people stop, and you're in danger.

[Inaudible.]—I quoted a number of projects that were all in the Plaid Cymru constituencies, I said that it could pay for the Cardiff to Swansea electrification. Now, yes, they will be in Plaid Cymru constituencies one day, but we're not quite there yet.

To deal with your deflections, you make my point for me—you make my point for me by saying that Crewe and getting that connection there is important. The whole point is that that connection hasn't been assured yet, so that's another failing in terms of what there is in HS2 for Wales. 

On Barnett consequentials, I must say, to get the understanding right, Scotland has a comparability factor of 100 per cent, which means in simple terms that it is considered that it's not a project for Scotland, therefore it gets an additional consequential. Wales has a comparability factor of 0 per cent and that is why Wales is losing out to the tune of probably up to £50 million per year. Now, considering that it's clear Wales will not receive a full consequential, that Welsh companies have lost out in the procurement process—whatever your hopes for building trains in the future, we haven't got that assured—the potential cost to the Welsh economy, that there's no news on electrification in the north or in the south, given that you failed to win that full consequential, isn't it time that the Labour Government in Wales changed its mind and argued against HS2, because it is against Wales's interests?

I was sorry to hear the Member respond in such an agitated and uncomradely way. I think it's important to recognise that on many issues—[Interruption.] On many issues, I think we would agree. And, on the particular issue of rail investment, there is no difference, I'm sure, across the Chamber, in our views that more resource should be spent in Wales. But the Member has already highlighted that he would wish to take on responsibility for spending Welsh taxpayers' money on projects that the UK Government should be investing in, such as the electrification of Cardiff to Swansea. That is a UK Government responsibility—that is not a Welsh Government responsibility—and the money should come from the UK Government. Why do you not challenge the UK Government over this issue and say, instead, that you would wish to take on that spending? It's absurd. It's absurd. I know that we're in the period of Halloween, with scary stories and practical jokes, but your idea of spending Welsh taxpayers' money on services and infrastructure that should be paid for by the UK Government is nothing short of a joke.

We now return to questions on the order paper and question 3—Michelle Brown.