Questions, now, from the party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, this week in a written reply to me, you accused the company behind the Circuit of Wales of, many material gaps and inaccuracies in the information’ they have provided to you. Now, that’s a fairly extraordinary claim for anyone to make, let alone a Government, about a counterparty with which you are just weeks away from making a decision about a £425 million-project, which you’ve been discussing for over six years. Isn’t it the case, Cabinet Secretary, that it’s your Government that’s been inaccurate? You promised, at that dispatch box in February, a four to six-week process, which is the standard timeline for confirmatory due diligence. What you’ve done is conduct a forensic audit with the express purpose, it seems to me, of finding some excuse—any excuse at all—to justify saying ‘no’. And isn’t it also the case, Cabinet Secretary, that having first delayed the decision until after the May local elections, you’re now delaying it beyond 8 June? Not because of any gaps in information, but because you don’t want to be open and honest with the people of Blaenau Gwent, who you’ve strung along with false hope and empty promises for six years.

Not at all. The Member is completely and utterly wrong. He asked a series of questions; I gave a series of honest answers. Never before have I seen an opposition spokesperson criticise a Minister for giving honest answers. My duty is to ensure that projects that can create jobs, that are sustainable, get the support of this Government. My job is to make sure we invest our resources where there are employment opportunities. I am excited by this project, but I will not short-circuit the due diligence process, unlike the Member, who would have signed it off last year with, incidentally, another £18 million of public funding guarantees.

You accuse the company of misleading you, and you say you give honest answers. Well, isn’t it the case that if anyone has been guilty of misleading people, it’s your Government? In the auditor general’s report, he refers to a press release that your Government issued on the FTR acquisition, which he says, in terms, was both incorrect and misleading. That’s the auditor general’s verdict, not mine, on this Government. Now, in your response to the auditor general’s report, you said that you were shocked and disappointed at its release during the pre-election period. Yet, isn’t it true, Cabinet Secretary, that the deputy permanent secretary was informed of the intention to publish on 10 March, almost six weeks before? As the auditor general has said in a letter to me, and I quote:

Although I can understand why the Cabinet Secretary has expressed disappointment regarding the timing of my report, I find it hard to understand how officers could express shock in this respect.’

You’re blaming the company, blaming the auditor general, blaming everyone else, but isn’t it true, Cabinet Secretary, that it’s you and your Government that are to blame for the fact that, here we are, six years on, still waiting for a decision?

I’m astonished, again, that the Member used the term ‘misleading’. I am astonished—

The auditor general used the term ‘misleading’.

In the context that he did. The Member should retract that, because what I stated in those written answers was true and factual—true and factual. And I say it again: my job is to ensure that projects that can gain Government support, that are proven to be sustainable and to create the jobs that they purport to be creating for the communities that they must serve—. My interest is with the people of Ebbw Vale; yours seems to be with political self-interest. There is a big difference—a big difference—between ambition and recklessness. I will not short-circuit the due diligence process. Where do you think the auditor general would have you, if you were to propose short-circuiting the due diligence process, if you were in my position? Do you think the auditor general would support you in that?

Here we have a Cabinet Secretary who has delayed a decision not once but twice, beyond an election, for obvious reasons, and he accuses me of acting in self-interest. There’s a simple answer to the charge of prevarication that we make, and that’s to get on and make a decision. The Cabinet Secretary has said that he has now got all the information from the company that he requires and that he expects to receive the final due diligence reports very shortly. So, can he confirm there is now no impediment, no barrier, no excuse left that will prevent him from making a decision and an announcement before 8 June? Can I remind the Cabinet Secretary that Cabinet Office guidance on Westminster general elections states clearly that devolved functions should continue as normal? His predecessor, Edwina Hart, made a decision on the Circuit of Wales in the middle of the Assembly pre-election period. If she was honest enough to do so, then why should you and the First Minister be cowering behind this excuse of pre-election purdah instead of being honest with the people of Blaenau Gwent who put their trust in you?

I should just suggest you keep digging yourself in, because what you’re essentially saying is that we should, again, ignore the due diligence process. The reason that there have been delays is because the information has not been fully populated in the data bank. That is the reason why. That is the reason why. Do not blame the Government for failing to provide the information that the developer is required to provide. We remain excited by this project—

[Inaudible.]

Ah; well, there we are. There we are, and there’s the point. You’re here to scrutinise me, but you don’t wish to listen. You just wish to give lectures about how to dodge due diligence. That is not your role. [Interruption.] That is not your role. [Interruption.] Your role is to ensure that you scrutinise—[Interruption.]—the information that is presented to you, but you don’t wish to do that. [Interruption.] You don’t wish to do that. What you wish to do—

Can we hear the Cabinet Secretary’s reply, please?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. What you do is you wish to butterfly-move from one policy and project decision to another. For example, how would a £12 billion world expo help the people in the Valleys if it were to be based in Cardiff? That was another of your suggestions. It presumably would come with a huge debt burden—[Interruption.] There are many—[Interruption.] I think you’ve amounted to £1 billion of debt per month since this Assembly was elected. That is not responsible; that is reckless. That is not ambitious; it’s delusional. Our job is to create—[Interruption.] Our job is to create lasting work for all people in Wales, and right now we are doing that. We have record employment in Wales as a result of this Government—our interventions, our investments. We now have low unemployment that is below a level the previous Governments at Westminster could ever have dreamed of, as a result of our interventions and our investment. Our job now is to tackle those structural problems within the Welsh economy that have deprived too many people of work for too long, but we will do it by making sure that our investments go into work that is sustainable. I will not dodge any due diligence process in ensuring that taxpayers’ money is invested in the right and proper way on behalf of the people of Wales.

Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Keeping on the theme of supporting the Welsh economy—[Interruption.]—I’m sure that you will welcome Theresa May’s pledge to—[Interruption.]

Can we move on to the next question? Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I’m sure you will welcome Theresa May’s pledge to abolish the Severn bridge tolls once ownership has transferred to Highways England next year, bringing, of course, at least £100 million to the Welsh economy per year—a far more immediate time frame than the one—perhaps Joyce Watson will listen to this—in Labour’s manifesto, which merely promises:

We will work with the Welsh Government to scrap the tolls on the Severn Bridge.’

Given that a Conservative Government on 8 June would open up Wales to even more economic prosperity, when will the M4 relief road get started to support the significant increase in traffic this will bring?

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I’m delighted by the u-turn approach of the Conservatives at Westminster. Nonetheless, I do welcome their move in the direction that the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has given a very clear and strong direction on. I am confident that the local public inquiry is proceeding to the time frame that was outlined. Subsequent to the outcome of the public local inquiry, a decision will be made, and I’ve outlined how I envisage and intend to ensure that work is carried out subject to the outcome of that inquiry without delay.

Well, of course, you’ll be aware there’s no u-turn on these benches. We’ve been very supportive of scrapping the Severn bridge tolls for some time. I can hear Joyce Watson shouting in the back row, ‘Where’s the money going to come from?’ I’ll perhaps answer that as well, Cabinet Secretary. The UK Government has provided substantial funding to boost the Welsh economy, from investing £1.2 billion in the Cardiff capital region, to a £400 million increase to capital budgets, as announced in the autumn statement, on top of the £500 million the Welsh Government will be able to borrow to invest from 2018.

Yet the creation of the national infrastructure commission, which will oversee the numerous infrastructure projects that we need in Wales, has been delayed until the end of this year. You will be aware, of course, of the economy and infrastructure committee’s recommendation in March, yet you didn’t accept the recommendation to establish it as a non-statutory body, with the presumption that legislation would follow, which I think was disappointing to committee members and many others. Do we take it that this will mean that the infrastructure commission will not be a permanent fixture in Wales?

No, we shouldn’t. The national infrastructure commission, the proposals for how it will be composed and the membership it will comprise has been clearly outlined. It’s our intention to ensure that there is, before the end of this Assembly term, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the commission, based on models that have operated elsewhere. We believe that it will be a very effective means of providing expert advice. I think it’s fair to say that one essential element of the work of the national infrastructure commission of Wales will be how it interacts with the UK commission, given the significance of many major infrastructure projects on both sides of the border, not least rail, in the coming 10 to 20 years. It’s my belief that, in terms of the presumption to put it on a statutory footing, we need to ensure that we first of all evaluate the effectiveness of the national infrastructure commission before we proceed with any further developments regarding its composition or how it stands.

Along with the substantial investment for infrastructure, the UK Government’s industrial strategy has provided key opportunities for regional economies. I note the Welsh Government has responded to the industrial strategy consultation, and so have the Welsh Conservatives. Can you commit to publishing your consultation response to Assembly Members immediately, and if not, why not?

This is something that I’m quite happy to do. I’ve said previously that I believe that the UK industrial strategy offers us opportunities in terms of where we can work together on regional economies and developing more place-based interventions. I think there are great opportunities likewise in terms of the sector deals, but what will be essential in the determination of the success or failure when the strategy is actually deployed as a set of actions is whether it’s backed up with the appropriate and necessary resource, not just across England, but also across the whole of the UK, including Wales. For that reason, I’m determined, if that strategy goes ahead—and of course it is dependent on the outcome of the UK general election—but if that strategy goes ahead then it’s essential that Wales benefits from its fair share of funding, especially with regard to research development and innovation.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Could the Cabinet Secretary update us on the Heads of the Valleys road improvement scheme and the expected finishing date for the Clydach gorge section?

I’d be more than happy to update Members on the Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme. It’s a scheme that we’re immensely proud of in Government. I believe it was my colleague Carl Sargeant who initiated the scheme after a previous transport or economic development Minister from a different party, I believe, delayed it. So, I’ll be more than happy to update Members on the progress of this hugely important piece of infrastructure for the Heads of the Valleys.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that answer. I asked the question, Cabinet Secretary, because I was wondering if it will be finished in time for the Circuit of Wales project.

That all depends on the delivery period of the Circuit of Wales. But the delivery period of the Heads of the Valleys road is progressing well, and there have been no major significant delays in recent weeks. I will update Members with detail about when it aims to be completed by.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Can I move on to another matter? As the Cabinet Secretary is aware, Blaenavon is a world heritage site with many thousands of visitors each year enjoying not only the restored ironworks, but also Big Pit and Blaenavon railway. However, this does not seem to be having the desired effect on the town itself, with many shops on the high street closed. Does the Welsh Government have any plans to improve the connectivity of the attractions of the town to the town itself?

The Member raises a very good point that’s relevant, actually, to many more communities that have important heritage sites on their doorstep. As a consequence of the work that’s been taking place via the steering group looking into the Historic Wales policy pledge, there will now be far closer interaction between those who manage Big Pit and the Blaenavon ironworks. I think as a consequence of that, there will be a greater focus on accessibility and outreach programmes. If they are able to work in tandem together, to pool resources—that are very limited, granted—I do believe that there will be opportunities to better advertise those wonderful assets to people who live in the immediate area, but also to enable better transport links and accessibility to both sites. I think the potential for joint ticketing across the region is enormous, so that more people can access more heritage sites, more of the time.

Question 3 [OAQ(5)0170(EI)] has been withdrawn.