Questions now from the party leaders. The Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price. 

Thank you, Llywydd. First of all, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, I’d like to extend my sincerest sympathies to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives as a result of the flooding over the weekend, including a constituent of mine, Corey Sharpling from Newcastle Emlyn, and I would welcome a personal commitment from the First Minister that the Government will look in earnest at any lessons that can be learned as a result of these tragic events.

First Minister, can you explain why, when the Labour group voted here a week ago against Plaid Cymru's motion calling for a people's vote on Brexit, two of your Ministers have been pressing the case for such a vote in recent days? Your health Secretary says the 'leave' campaign could have committed fraud. Your skills Minister says Brexit would be a tragedy and seriously damage Wales. Both say they would vote 'remain' in a referendum that should be held on the Brexit deal. Now, I agree with them. The question is: do you, or do you agree with your finance Secretary who declared that a people's vote isn't a policy but a slogan?

May I start by echoing his comments on the tragic news that we heard over the weekend and also extend our deepest condolences on these benches to the family of Corey Sharpling? It happened in his constituency, of course, and it is something that is dreadful for the family and the whole community too. I join with him in those comments.

First of all, our policy is very clear with regard to a second referendum. We have said that a second referendum could only come about in certain circumstances. The first is whether or not there is an agreement at the Westminster Parliament and here and the Scottish Parliament. If there is no such agreement, to my mind there should then be a general election. If the results of that general election are inconclusive, how then do you resolve the issue, other than of course by having another referendum?

I think the Labour Party could be accused of creative ambiguity in relation to its Brexit policy, but I don't think it could be accused of clarity. No more is that ambiguity on show than in the Labour leadership hustings. Reports from the first hustings held last week in the battle to replace you certainly made for interesting reading. Your skills Minister complained about the cuts to adult education. The finance Secretary described your attempts at reorganising local government as having been, as he put it, flawed and a distraction. And your health Secretary admitted that healthcare could have been better reorganised over the nine years that you've been at the helm. It's difficult to disagree with him when he says more of the same is not enough, but, when Vaughan Gething says that what Wales needs is a leader not a manager, is it the finance Minister or you that he has in mind?

Having been here for more than nine years, the people of Wales have shown their confidence in me and my party, and I leave in the knowledge of that confidence. I have no difficulty with candidates bringing ideas forward. That's what they're meant to do. As long as, of course, they don't conflict with established Government policy, then it's absolutely right in a leadership contest that candidates should be free to come forward with ideas of their own. They're not going to say, 'Let's do things exactly as they have been'. They are of course in a position where they need to bring forward fresh ideas, and that's something that I very much welcome. I do welcome the fact that he is following the hustings and the leadership contest within my party with very great interest. I'm sure he will be able to ask questions of my successor when my successor takes over as First Minister. 

Perhaps the biggest criticism made of your Government is that you don't like criticism. It's not just me saying that, but your Cabinet Secretary for local government, Alun Davies—I knew your time would come, Alun—who said this in a lecture to Public Affairs Cymru a few weeks ago:

'All too often I have seen people pull punches and bite lips whilst giving evidence to committees because criticism of Welsh Government or ministers is too difficult for organisations whose funding depends upon the largesse of that same government and those ministers.'

This culture of silence, the Welsh omertà, seems also to extend to the senior civil service. We saw only yesterday the Permanent Secretary refusing to answer questions about public accounts at the Public Accounts Committee. Was this because she was afraid of embarrassing you and your Ministers?

Far from it. I don't know what he's referring to there. I know there was an issue with the accounts not being available in Welsh, which is unfortunate and will need to be rectified and I think has been rectified by now. We are very confident in what we have done in order to provide the support needed to bring jobs into Wales, and today we celebrate the fact that unemployment is 3.3 per cent. It is below the UK average. We celebrate the fact that we have record employment, higher than Scotland—record employment—and economic inactivity is down. These are figures we would have dreamt of not so long ago, and that shows how important it is to have a Welsh Labour-led Government that provides the support to business and ensures that unemployment comes down below the UK average. That's the devolution dividend.

The leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I also associate myself with the remarks made by the leader of Plaid Cymru and send my sympathies and my party's condolences to Corey Sharpling's family? 

First Minister, in light of this weekend's devastating floods, do you consider your decision to cut capital spending on flood defences by almost 50 per cent in 2016-17 wise?

We have invested a great deal of money—£350 million—over this Government term to reduce the risk of flooding and coastal erosion. That's a substantial investment, far in excess of what's been done by his party in England, I have to say, where flood defence money has been cut very, very sharply indeed.

Now, what we will do, of course, is wait for NRW to conduct an analysis of whether there is more that can be done, or a reprioritising of some schemes, in the light of the evidence that we have seen from the flooding over the course of the past weekend. That is the sensible thing to do, that is the responsible thing to do, but I can say that there is already evidence that the schemes that have been put in place have helped to mitigate and prevent flooding across Wales where flooding would have occurred in the past.

Well, First Minister, it's about time that you take responsibility for what you are actually responsible for here in Wales, instead of talking about England. Let me give you some of the figures. [Interruption.] Let me give you—[Interruption.] Let me give you some of the figures. Between 2015-16 and 2016-17, capital spending on flood defences was cut from £18 million to £9.5 million, and it's therefore true to say that spending on flood-risk management and flood defences is not your Government's priority. Once again, your Government has failed to understand and address the needs of communities across Wales. Will you now apologise to those homes and businesses for the devastation and havoc that have been caused because of the cuts we've seen to NRW's budget over the years?

Does he know how many flooding events there have been in England over the years? There are some things that are very difficult to prevent. We are not in a position where we can prevent every single flood, despite the weather, and what we saw over the weekend was an extreme weather event. Despite that, we will work with NRW to understand what more may need to be done in order to mitigate the impacts of flooding in the future. 

But he simply cannot say, 'Well, you know, this is Wales—forget about what's happening in Whitehall.' The money, in the main—all of it, almost—comes from his Government in London, and yet he sits there and says, 'Well, it's all your fault that spending has been cut', when, in fact, as the finance Secretary has already said, if spending had kept pace—if public spending had kept pace and our block grant had kept pace—with growth in the economy since 2010, we would have £4 billion more. Why doesn't he make the case for Wales? We know Northern Ireland had £1 billion-worth of bung money. Why doesn't he make the case for Wales?

Yes, of course, we take responsibility in devolved areas, but perhaps he might want to take some responsibility and say to his colleagues in London, 'Enough is enough—let's end austerity; give Wales the money that it deserves.'

The reason we've had to cut spending, as a UK Government, over the last few years is because of the shambles—the shambles—that you left, as a party, in 2010. And we're still paying—[Interruption.] We're still paying the price for that. Now, First Minister—[Interruption.] First Minister, clearly—[Interruption.] Clearly—

Okay. Okay, allow the leader of the opposition to be heard.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, clearly, flooding is not a priority for your Government, because the remit letter from the environment Minister, which sets the priorities for Natural Resources Wales each year, does not prioritise flooding, flood-risk management or water management at all. This is the latest in a long line of failures at Natural Resources Wales, and a weakness of your Government to properly manage this organisation. First Minister, how will you and your Minister now get a grip of this issue and ensure that flooding and flood-risk management will be a priority for you and your Government in the future?

Well, from a representative of the party that created the omnishambles—I don't think we can take any lessons from them. As I said to him earlier on, we will have provided over £350 million of investment across Wales to local authorities and NRW to reduce the risk of flooding and coastal erosion. 

But he cannot escape the fact that we have seen year after year after year of cuts to our budget here in Wales, even as the Democratic Unionist Party's votes were bought by his party—£1 billion; silence from the Conservative benches. Did they stand up for Wales? Of course they didn't. Did they complain to their colleagues in London? Of course they didn't. Far easier to try and pin the blame on us, when our budget is being cut year after year after year, than actually try and influence their colleagues in London, over whom they say they have a great deal of influence, and provide Wales with the fair play that Wales deserves—that extra £4 billion—and, of course, ensuring that Northern Ireland doesn't get £1 billion, with nothing for Scotland and Wales in the future. That's responsibility—perhaps he'd like to apologise to the people of Wales for his failure in that regard.

Leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I add my condolences to the families of people who were affected by the tragic events at the weekend. Now, First Minister, you will be well aware of the environmental effects of wood burning. Wood burning is seen by some environmentalists as a source of air pollution. Burning wood from trees also releases concentrated toxins back into the air, increasing our carbon footprint. So, I would like to ask you, First Minister, what is the Welsh Government's policy regarding the burning of wood? 

We are supportive of biomass but, of course, we want to make sure that the energy mix is as broad as possible, whilst taking into account our commitments in terms of reducing our carbon footprint. That's why, of course, we've seen biomass plants around Wales. Of course, biomass is renewable in the sense that you can replant trees in a way, for example, that isn't possible with coal. 

Thank you for that answer. There are some contentious arguments going on about wood burning and biomass, as to whether that really is renewable, so I will ask you on that, if I may. Now, a few weeks ago at First Minister's questions, you were telling us how EU regulations and guidance were helping Wales and the UK to protect the environment. And yet I now see that the EU has recently promoted the burning of wood as an environmentally-friendly and renewable fuel, as you just referred to the practice yourself. However, in adopting this position, the EU has drawn quite pointed criticism from many respected environmental scientists. For example, Eric Lambin of Stanford University said:

'Treating wood as a carbon-neutral fuel is a simple policy decision with complex cascading effects on forest use, energy systems, wood trade and biodiversity worldwide.' 

End of quote. The worry is that by treating wood burning as a virtuous renewable fuel, we can end up desecrating forests, increasing the harvesting of global woodland, and, ultimately, producing increased emissions of greenhouse gas. Bearing all that in mind, First Minister, is your Government still confident that the EU is delivering the environmental protections that you have been telling us about? 

Yes, because—. Well, let me see if I can explain it. Wood comes from trees, and trees grow. [Laughter.] And trees—. You can plant trees, they will grow, and they are replaceable in the way that coal, for example, as a fossil fuel, isn't. And I come back to the point I made earlier on—well, a few weeks ago in this Chamber: it's because of the EU that the UK cleaned up its act. The UK was one of the worst polluters in Europe. There was a river—I believe it was the River Irwell in Salford—that would catch alight if a lit match was thrown into it. Air quality was bad. We contributed hugely to acid rain. Our beaches were filthy. All those things have changed because European regulations have cleaned up Britain, and the last thing I'd want to see is us going back to those dark days in the 1980s where, for example, the River Ogmore in Bridgend used to run different colours according to what had been put into it upriver. I saw it run green, red, black—take your pick, really. The level of pollution was horrendous. Those days can never return. 

Yes, you're using your well-worn anecdote about the River Irwell in Salford again. Well, we don't have to go as far away as the River Irwell—you also cite the River Ogmore. We had two rivers in Cardiff that would also change colour, so I'm not disagreeing with you on that—the Taff would turn black with coal dust; the Ely would change into various bright colours as it passed Ely papermill, depending on which colour dye had just been flushed into the river. But, going back to the River Irwell, I'd quote from a recent Cardiff University paper that referenced the recent addition of the journal Nature Geoscience. I quote, 'But a recent analysis of the Irwell system in the north-west of England found the highest concentration of plastic recorded in any river in the world.' End quote. So, even with all of these wonderful EU regulations, the river is still apparently suffering from some fairly major pollution. 

Now, I think there are a couple of points to be made here. One is that you talk about my party, UKIP, wanting the UK to leave the EU as though we don't want any environmental regulations. And you speak as if, the moment the UK does leave the EU, all of the environmental regulations will disappear overnight. Clearly, this is nonsense and you're merely scaremongering. There is a continuity Bill that will ensure that all of the environmental regulations—every single one of them— will be preserved in UK law until such time as the UK Parliament has had time to assess that regulation and determine whether or not to keep it, to amend it, or to dispose of it. That process will take some time, obviously, because the legislators will have thousands of EU regulations to examine. 

But another point I would like to make is this—[Interruption.]  

You do need to get to a question. 

I will. You seem to have a blind faith in EU directives and regulations, and yet—[Interruption.] 

And now I can't hear whether he is getting to a question. 

I am, Llywydd. 

Yes. Thank you, Gareth. 

And yet the EU supports wood burning, and we have people in Wales facing potential health risks as a result of that wood burning. There were at least three fires in south Wales at a wood recycling plant last year alone. Natural Resources Wales, which you oversee, gave a licence to a biomass incinerator neighbouring residential properties near Barry Dock. There's black, acrid smoke—[Interruption.]

Okay. I do need a question now. 

How do you respond to the acrid, black smoke being suffered by residents near that wood-burning incinerator? 

Well, his party, as far as I'm aware, is in favour of more coal, which means more opencast, actually, because that's the only way to really get at coal in Wales now. It would be very difficult to sink any deep mines, even if we wanted to, to access that coal, and hugely expensive because of the geological faults, particularly in south Wales. I'm not sure whether he's saying that somehow the EU is polluting Britain with biomass. And he cites the River Irwell—there's work to be done there, clearly, with plastic. But the point is this: I don't make the point that somehow all environmental regulations will fall away as soon as we leave the EU; I make the point that it was the EU that forced Britain to clean up its act. The UK had an awful record when it came to pollution. It was forced to clean up beaches, clean up rivers, clean up the sea, because of European regulation. I would not want to see a situation in the future where we went backwards because of some crazed free-market ideology that said that environmental regulation is something that should be light touch. Absolutely not; we pride ourselves on our environment in Wales, we pride ourselves on the fact that it's been cleaned up so much over the past 30 years, and it will not go backwards.