Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, could I identify myself with the comments that you made about the tragedies in London earlier on in the week? Obviously, we do stand shoulder to shoulder with the citizens of London and Manchester, and, ultimately, by getting about our normal way of life, we are defeating these terrorists—these thugs—who are inflicting such terrible, terrible tragedies on some of our communities. And, whilst we might live in Wales, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the communities in London and anywhere else where people feel under threat.

I would like to ask you, with that in mind, with the general election now on Thursday, obviously people will be voting on commitments made by the parties, and you, yesterday, in your role as First Minister, said that Labour, if they were to win on Thursday, would get rid of the Barnett formula. Yet today, we’ve had Scottish Labour firmly coming out and saying that there are no plans to get rid of the Barnett formula. Who’s right, Kezia Dugdale or Carwyn Jones?

Well, I’ve spoken to Kezia Dugdale. What we do know is the Tories will take money away from both Wales and Scotland, and that is something that is pretty clear in terms of their manifesto. The situation is quite simply this: upon the election of a Labour Government, Barnett would remain in place in the short term. There would then be a long-term funding formula put in place according to the needs of the different nations and regions of the UK, ensuring, of course, that no part of the UK is unfairly disadvantaged. That means that Barnett would come to an end at that time. I wonder where the commitment from the Conservatives is to ensure fair funding for Wales.

Well, as well you know, the agreement between the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government put the funding floor in place, which was warmly endorsed by your Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government only in December of last year. Thirteen years—you did nothing. But that’s not quite what the Scottish Conservatives are saying, and I offered you the opportunity to actually clarify your position because you were very robust last night in saying that the Barnett formula would be scrapped. Actually, what the Scottish Labour party are saying is that there will be no scrapping of the Barnett formula, and these are their words:

‘Not to scrap the Barnett formula’.

All that is merely being proposed in the next Parliament—these are their words—is a long-term consultation to look at funding the UK allocates around the public expenditure that comes from Westminster to ensure that it reflects the nations and the regions of the United Kingdom. Those are their words, those are. That isn’t getting rid of the Barnett formula at all. Are you misleading the people of Wales with your comments yesterday, First Minister?

That is exactly what it means. If there is a new formula in place, that is the end of Barnett, at that point. Of course, in the short term Barnett would remain because there’s nothing else in place at that time, but we want to make sure that Wales receives fair funding. Yes, we came to an agreement on funding, and that’s because the UK Government resolutely refused to look at funding as far as Wales is concerned. It was a compromise position. We have never changed our position, as a Government, that the Barnett formula has run towards the end of its life, and now is the time to start planning for a new formula that would reflect the proper needs of the different nations and regions of the UK as they are now, not as they were in 1979.

First Minister, you were very clear last night in that you were saying you were scrapping the Barnett formula, full stop. There was no equivocation around that. You were saying that last night on the television and through the news. Scottish Labour Party are saying, quite clearly, there will be no scrapping of the Barnett formula. How on earth can anyone take any of the pledges that you are making seriously, when you have been caught out in the last week of this campaign? Ultimately—[Interruption.] The Labour Party—[Interruption.] The Labour Party—

Let Andrew R.T. Davies continue his question.

The Labour Party might mock, but, ultimately, the funding of public services is a vital consideration for the electorate on Thursday. We have put a funding floor in place, with agreement of the Welsh Government, that guarantees that funding in Wales will not go under £115 for every £100 that is spent in England. You, yesterday, said that Labour Party policy was to get rid of the Barnett formula. Scottish Labour Party are saying that is not the case, and all that will come forward is a consultation. Is there a fact that all Labour policies are just built on sand, First Minister?

Isn’t it a shame that he will not support a situation where Wales gets the funding it deserves? Isn’t it a shame? It tells really of the way that they think. Isn’t it a shame that he was not there to make these points in such a good debate on television? You know, I’m sure that it was possible to see a live broadcast from Gran Canaria to make sure that his view was put forward as somebody who claims to be the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. As he rightly said, the Secretary of State was unwilling to take part in the third debate—because he pulled out because I was in it. That’s what we heard. He was not willing to come and debate—and other leaders as well—and to put forward the Conservative case. He has some brass neck to come before this Chamber and say that somehow things are a shambles on these benches when, on three different occasions, the Tories couldn’t even field the same person in three different debates, so lacking in confidence were they in their own case. We’ve seen over the past few days shambles after shambles after shambles in the Conservative party. I invite him to read the UK Labour manifesto, where it’s absolutely clear, where it says that there will be a new funding formula that reflects the needs of different nations and regions of the UK—a commitment we have made; a commitment his party has run from.

Plaid Cymru Leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, on Thursday, people will go to the polls in what is a very important election. It’s been noted how you’ve airbrushed your UK party leader out of your campaign, and how you have issued a separate manifesto. There are two Labour manifestos—three, if you count the Scottish manifesto that was referred to earlier.

In the interests of openness, transparency, and honesty just before people cast their votes on Thursday, will you tell us: are Labour MPs elected in Wales next Thursday bound by the commitments in your manifesto or by the commitments in your UK Labour leader’s manifesto?

By the Welsh Labour manifesto, because there is no dichotomy between the two manifestos. The leader of Plaid Cymru might have noticed that devolution occurred in 1999, and, on that basis, it’s not possible for political parties who have a presence in the different nations of the UK to produce a manifesto that’s exactly the same. We reflect the reality of devolution, and that’s exactly what we’ve done in our manifesto. There is no contradiction in terms of the Welsh Labour manifesto and the UK Labour manifesto, saving areas that are devolved, where the decisions regarding those policies are made here.

You say there are no differences. First Minister, there are differences in the two manifestos, but I’ll come back to that shortly. Your party leader has been described variously as ‘the man who broke the Labour Party’—that was Chris Bryant—a ‘lunatic at the top of the Labour Party’—that was Owen Smith—‘hard left’ and ‘out of touch with the electorate’—that was Stephen Kinnock. Would you like to associate yourself with any of those statements about your leader, or would you like to take this opportunity to distance yourself from the views of those Welsh Labour candidates?

Well, let me make it very, very clear: Jeremy Corbyn would make an excellent Prime Minister. He would offer hope for Britain as opposed to the endless succession of Tory cuts that we have seen from the benches opposite. We would see a Government that would take Britain forward, would deliver a proper, devolved settlement for Wales, based on the legislation that we have put forward, while, at the same time, we see Plaid Cymru looking at creating a coalition with the Tories in Conwy.

They always trot that one out, don’t they, when they’ve got nothing left? First Minister, you must be very desperate to play on people’s—

Okay. We do need to hear what’s being asked and the answers. So, let’s all calm down and look forward to next week.

I want to come back to this point about the differences in the manifestos between you and your UK Labour leader. Zero-hours contracts bans, tuition fees scrapped, the railways in public hands: that’s what’s in the UK manifesto. Labour is in power here and none of these policies have been implemented. Can we get a commitment from you now that you will give your unmitigated support to those policies now that it’s official policy of your party, or are you accepting that you are about to mislead the electorate on Thursday?

There’s nothing more misleading than a party that says, ‘We want more money from Westminster’, but at the same time says, ‘We want independence from Westminster’. That is a fundamental contradiction. But she asks three questions. First of all, if the money is made available to us to look again at student finance then we will do so—of course we will. Zero-hours contracts are in the main not devolved. We do not support zero-hours contracts. They’re grandstanding on that. We, as a party, want to make sure that we see a society that is fair, that is just, and where people have the opportunities they need to flourish in the future. Only a Labour Government in the UK can do that. Plaid Cymru can deliver nothing.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m sure I’ll carry the First Minister with me in saying that the last 10 minutes have proved, if nothing else, that the time for sterile political point-scoring is long past in this general election campaign to have any positive effect either way, and therefore we should concentrate more on building a successful economic future for Wales collectively, supporting other parties where that’s necessary. And, to that extent, I’d like to refer back to the question that Adam Price asked immediately before party leaders’ questions, and I take what the First Minister said in response to his supplementary about how the Government must conduct proper due diligence of the current proposal, but the auditor general’s report on the initial funding of this project contains a catalogue of opportunities for due diligence to be conducted over the last five years, starting with the calling in of the planning application in 2012, which was approved by Carl Sargeant on account of its socioeconomic benefits. In 2014, we had the initial funding of £16 million for the development of the project, then we had a public inquiry on the deregistration of the common land. Then, in April 2016, Edwina Hart rejected the first guarantee application. In July 2016, Ken Skates rejected the second guarantee proposal, which then led to intensive discussions with officials on a variety of important issues, and then, this year, in January, we had the fully funded term sheets provided by the company and we were told due diligence was to last three to four weeks. That was then extended to six weeks and then it’s been extended further, and the First Minister today has given us, I hope, an end date for the consideration of this proposal. So, we’ve had endless due diligence, and I know that the auditor general has made a number of important criticisms of the process. I don’t want to go into that now, because I want to see this project succeed and I hope, at the end of the day, that the Welsh Government is going to give it the go-ahead. But does he not think that this tortuous process is far too long, even though this is a massive project for the future? Its transformative potential is so great that we should have got on with this much more diligently than we have.

When it comes to a planning application or the deregistration of common land, due diligence wouldn’t occur at that point because they are not—. They are planning applications and they’re applications that are not to do with the robustness or not of a particular business. That comes later on. I make no apologies for the due diligence process. It is robust. It has taken longer that we would’ve wanted. That’s because information has had to be sought at certain points, and that information has been provided. I’ve given a date to Members by which we want to take that decision now and I’ve indicated to Members I would like to see this project proceed. But it has to proceed on a basis that is sustainable and where the risk to the public purse is acceptable.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. I see also on the BBC website today that the Government has been in talks with a view to getting the golf Open championship to come to Wales, and the Tour de France as well, and also there’s a possibility, if the Brussels stadium is not ready in time, that Euro 2020 could be held in Wales, and I would support the Government’s interest in that. Ken Skates has quite rightly said that Wales has great potential to host major new events that haven’t yet been to Wales. The Circuit of Wales has already got the contract for the Moto Grand Prix, and that’s yet another opportunity for us in Wales to show what we can do as a host for major world sports projects. And therefore this fits into the Government’s overall objective for making Wales a major international sports venue, and that’s another reason for us to see the success of this project.

I can only repeat what I’ve already said to him, that of course we recognise the potential of the circuit, and I’ve said that it’s something we would want to support, but it has to be based on a model that is sound, and a model that works well for both private and public investors.

And it’s also important to note that there is no request for any public money to be invested in this project upfront, and that all that is being sought is a guarantee, which is a commercial guarantee that the Government would pay to finance, which will be called only as and when all the construction on the site is completed, so there will be physical assets against which the loan can be secured. And, on an annual basis, the maximum risk to the Welsh Government is said to be £8.5 million to £9 million a year many, many years in the future for a limited period of time. So, the risk is secured on 100 per cent of the assets, but the guarantee is going to apply to less than half of the value of those assets. So, on the face of it, this does look a very good deal, and, whilst I appreciate we have to go through the due diligence process, it is, I think, of vital importance to the economic prosperity not just of south-east Wales but the whole of south Wales that this project does get the go-ahead.

This is all being considered as part of the due diligence process. There is no difference to my mind in being asked to provide money upfront and being asked to provide a guarantee. The commitment is the same. Indeed, with a guarantee, there is a need for more robustness in terms of making sure that that guarantee is unlikely to be called upon. I think it can never be guaranteed—if I can use that—but it’s important that as much is done to minimise any risk to the public purse, and that’s what we’re looking at as part of this process. And, as I said before, it’s a project that has potential, and I think this has helped the circuit themselves—a robust testing process of their model is good for them. They are able then to think carefully about what they think will be sustainable in the longer term, and on that basis we look forward now, when all the information is in—we trust this week—to be able to take a decision over the course of the next two or three weeks.