I call on the party spokespeople to ask their questions of the Cabinet Secretary. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, in November last year, you told the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee that the First Minister had said that he expects the economic strategy to be with him by the spring of 2017. Earlier this year, you said in Plenary that you had to wait until the UK’s industrial strategy had been published in January. On 8 February, a Government amendment to a debate on the economy noted:

the Welsh Government’s plan to publish a cross-cutting strategy to support economic growth later in the spring.’

The First Minister, on 16 May, in response to a question by David Rees, said,

We intend to publish our strategic approach to building prosperity for all before the summer recess.’

And, finally, just a couple of weeks ago, Cabinet Secretary, on 3 July, at the external affairs committee, you said you would publish this strategy in this term. Cabinet Secretary, this is the last day of term: where’s the strategy?

I’m pleased to be able to inform the Member that the cross-cutting strategy ‘prosperity for all’ was approved by Cabinet this week. It has been completed. It will be published early in the autumn on return of this Assembly, and, over the summer, we will be engaging in an extensive—[Interruption.]—in an extensive stakeholder engagement programme to further refine the work, based in action, after the strategy has been published.

For the record, Members are asking which autumn of which year we’re talking about. So, maybe the Cabinet Secretary might want to put that on the record. Now, maybe one of the reasons for it being delayed was because you had to rewrite it following the fall-out of your decision over the Circuit of Wales. Now, on 27 June, Cabinet Secretary, you told the Assembly that you could not have a definitive answer from the Office for National Statistics on the balance sheet issue until after contracts were signed. There was a risk that, many months down the line, you could find yourself with a project on the balance sheet with all the implications that would have. You’ve now admitted to me in a written answer that there was an alternative: you could have asked for a provisional ruling from ONS. Why didn’t you?

Can I first of all thank the Member for his good humour, this being the last opportunity that he will have in this current term to question me? Can I also thank him for the 12 months that we’ve had of grilling and probing and having me on the rack, during which time we have disagreed on a number of occasions, but I hope we have been able to agree on a number of subjects as well? I recognise the Member’s deep belief in the Circuit of Wales project, and I also recognise his disappointment that we were unable to support it. It would have been wholly irresponsible to have taken it forward on the basis of risk that was presented. And, in terms of the point that the Member makes, provisional advice on potential developments can be sought from the ONS, but that should only be when contractual documentation is in a near final form and following a decision in principle to offer Government support.

Well, Cabinet Secretary, your Government did ask for a provisional ruling from ONS when you made a decision in principle on your own Government’s mutual investment model in October 2016. Furthermore, isn’t it true, Cabinet Secretary, that ONS has also got provision for policy proposals that are not at a near final stage? Their classification guidelines, which you yourself referenced in your answer to me, say this:

government departments might seek a view on a proposal at an early stage of development. In such cases, ONS will provide provisional advice on the expected classification of the proposal, based on information available at the time.’

So, my question to you is this: did you seek, and were you given, provisional advice on the expected classification of the Circuit of Wales proposal from ONS? And let’s be clear: what I’m asking you is not whether you spoke to them and then formed your own view based on what they said, but did you ask them for their provisional advice in the terms set out in their guidelines? And as the Cabinet Secretary invites me to end the scrutiny on a more positive note, can I ask him this one last thing? If, out of the rubble, the Circuit of Wales project was rescued by the local authorities in the city region—with the prospect now, of course, of Formula 1 being a possibility as well—and the Welsh Government were asked not for their money, but for their blessing, would you welcome the project being salvaged in this way?

Can I thank the Member for his further questions? Of course, the one big question that we’re still awaiting an answer for is whether he agrees with our decision that was taken last month, and unfortunately there is no agreement, which I’m sure indicates that the Member would have been content to have signed off the project, only to have returned here, in all likelihood in six months’ time, to tell the Chamber that he was having to put on ice more than £300 million of capital programmes, which, as I’ve said in this Chamber before, would amount to 5,000 affordable homes or 10 schools or one superhospital. I don’t just call that irresponsible; I call that reckless in the extreme. [Interruption.] I hear the leader of UKIP—we’re entering the pantomime audition season—entering the fray from the side, but the point is that he too would have signed off this project in a demonstration of huge irresponsibility.

The fact is that we took responsible action on what was a controversial subject, which did fire up passions and beliefs in the Valleys, but we are now moving on with a clear vision for the Heads of the Valleys and we will deliver. The people of Ebbw Vale, Blaenau Gwent and the Heads of the Valleys have waited long enough. We are here to deliver and we will do just that.

You didn’t answer the question.

Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, infrastructure projects have too often been delayed by short-term political considerations, and this has often led to spiralling costs and the cancellation of projects altogether. In addition, where high levels of uncertainty hang above infrastructure schemes, potentially, private sector investors are often deterred from providing financial backing for these kinds of projects. When infrastructure is planned and delivered within the context of a secure, credible and long-term view, these projects often secure a greater level of private sector interest and investment. So, can I ask you, perhaps in the light of recent events as well, to reconsider putting the national infrastructure commission on a statutory footing? I would also suggest that it will be a missed opportunity for you not to do that. I think what the Government needs to do is to demonstrate a genuine commitment to creating a stable and long-term approach to infrastructure development in Wales.

Can I thank the Member for his question and also for the work that he led in assessing the establishment of the national infrastructure commission of Wales? Of course, we already utilise innovative forms of funding. We are doing that with the dualling of the A465, and we will continue to do so. The work that’s taking place on the infrastructure commission is taking place at speed. We are now looking at the appointments of the chair and the members of that commission in the early autumn, and as I’ve said on previous occasions, we will review the operations of the commission before the end of this Assembly term. I have given my undertaking to do that. As of yet, we have received no compelling evidence for putting it on a statutory footing. However, we will be reviewing the effectiveness and the delivery of the commission by the end of this Assembly.

Well, I would put it to you, Cabinet Secretary, that we do need a more long-term and stable approach in Wales—more than ever before. Over the last number of years, the Welsh Government has presided over a number of significant major project failures, I’m afraid to say. That has created confusion and uncertainty for potential private sector investors, and the failure and the process with regard to the Circuit of Wales—as Adam Price has mentioned earlier—is one example where we see, potentially, a reduced confidence amongst investors that Wales is indeed open for business. Do you, Cabinet Secretary, acknowledge that the creation of the infrastructure commission should be followed up by the introduction of legislation to equip the commission with the extra weight and clout it needs to do its work?

As I’ve said, we will be assessing the effectiveness of the commission by the end of this Assembly term. We will be establishing it by the end of this year. I must disagree with the assertion made by the Member that Wales may appear not to be open for business given the latest results for inward investment, which show, I believe, that it was the third most successful year. Indeed, investment from within the UK into Wales reached a record high. We are continuing with our efforts to bring in major projects. Just last week we were able to announce the investment by Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles—a huge investment that will bring monumental change to Newport and the economy of south-east Wales, creating 300 jobs, but also, crucially, offering enormous potential for expansion. That’s something that we will build upon. Since May of this year, we have announced, through our support, the creation of more than 500 jobs in this current year, and we are also working to establish many more jobs across—and that’s just in Wales in this past eight weeks. But we are also working with a pipeline of interests at the moment to create further employment opportunities in the months to come.

And finally, Cabinet Secretary, if I could perhaps pursue an issue that Adam Price raised in his first question, there’s still some confusion for me in this regard, certainly when it comes to your publishing of ‘prosperous and secure’ and your economic strategy. I’m aware that you did tell the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee that you’d publish it this term; I’m aware that last week, in the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, you said it would be the autumn; however, in the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister on Friday of this week, I asked the First Minister and put it to him, and he said that ‘prosperous and secure’ would be published this term. So, I have to say I am a little bit confused. So, reflecting on what the Presiding Officer said at the beginning of proceedings today, who is right? Is it yourself or the First Minister?

I can assure the Member—I can assure the Member because we were all there at Cabinet—that ‘prosperity for all’ was approved, was signed off by all members of the Cabinet on Tuesday, and will be published as soon as we return.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m not sure whether the Cabinet Secretary recalls it, but as long ago as yesterday I questioned you on the availability of funding, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in the research and development sector. In evidence to the EIS committee last week, you indicated that the development bank of Wales would be moving away from direct grants to repayable loans. Do you not think that this would present a particular obstacle to such companies, as these may not see the financial benefits of their research for many years?

Well, there is a need to balance direct support in the form of grants with repayable loans, because repayable loans offer an evergreen approach that can recycle investments into other businesses, but I do take the point that the Member raises, which is that a repayable loan is not the answer and not the best means of supporting all businesses. For that reason we will maintain other forms of direct support, be it grants or indeed advice through Business Wales and the development bank itself.

Well, forgive me if I show some continuing frustration, Cabinet Secretary, but I have personal involvement with a constituent who is seeking funding for what seems to be a project that fits all the Welsh Government criteria, in that it involves cutting-edge nanotechnology, will have a hugely beneficial environmental impact and has massive growth potential, and yet although some funding has been made available through his engagement with both Bangor and Swansea universities, I have seen at first hand how difficult it is to access further funding to take this product to fruition. Surely, Cabinet Secretary, if Wales is to succeed in its aspirations to become a world leader in this environmentally friendly technology, we have to have the funding processes that will allow this to happen.

We do, indeed. Research funding is absolutely crucial, and that’s why we’ve been very clear that any research funding that could potentially be lost when we exit the EU is made good by the UK Government. In terms of the specific company that the Member mentions, it’s not clear whether they have an account manager within Business Wales to support them, but I would gladly make contact with the company if the Member can provide details of it and ensure that Business Wales are there to give support and signpost the company to the best method of financing their product so it can reach market.

Thank you.