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

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, on 6 December 2017, you made a written statement on project bank accounts, designed to prevent smaller subcontractors losing money when larger firms go bust. You said,

'From 1 January 2018, project bank accounts will be used, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so, on all conventionally-funded construction and infrastructure contracts...fully or part-funded by the Welsh Government with a value of £2m or more'.

Since 1 January 2018, there have been 32 construction projects over £2 million fully or part funded by the Welsh Government. How many of those have used project bank accounts as you personally promised?

Well, I would expect them all to use project bank accounts on the terms that have been set out by the Welsh Government.

The answer is none of them. None of them. It's actually your own Government that responded to a freedom of information request yesterday. None of those 32 projects have actually used project bank accounts, despite what you've promised. That's a lot of compelling reasons, it must be.

Failure to deliver on commitments like that doesn't just hurt your reputation, First Minister, or that of your Government, it erodes trust in politics itself. Now, during the Labour Party conference in April, you said,

'we will end the demeaning and degrading practice of no-fault evictions for those people who live in the private rented sector', yet, last week, your Minister for Housing and Local Government launched a consultation on extending the notice period on no-fault evictions from two months to six. Is that what you meant when you said you'd end no-fault evictions?

Well, Llywydd, on the first point the Member makes, I will make sure that I have an investigation of that matter and then we'll make sure that the full facts are known to Members of the Assembly.

On the second point, he will know that we are now in a position to implement the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, passed on this Assembly floor in 2016, and that will allow us to implement section 173 of that Act, thus abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions. The consultation that was launched last week will be part of our implementation plan. It will certainly make a difference to no-fault evictions here in Wales and we will monitor very carefully the implementation of the new law that we will introduce to see that it is doing everything that we want it to do. If there are further steps that we need to take beyond the law that was passed in this Assembly only three years ago, then, of course, we will look at that, but nobody should pretend that the steps that we are now committed to taking do not make a very substantial step forward in our determination that no-fault evictions should not be part of the private rented landscape here in Wales.

That isn't what you're doing. I mean, your housing Minister actually gave a speech at Shelter, where she said that you're not ending them completely and you didn't want the perfect to be the end of the good. Why didn't you say that at your conference?

Now, the biggest promise, I guess, we make as public representatives is not to waste public money. Your Government has spent £9 million on a racing track and £123 million on a road that will never be built, but perhaps the most curious case of profligacy involves a photograph of Dylan Thomas. Seven years ago, Visit Wales, which was using the photo to promote the centenary of the poet's birth, was contacted by the owner of the copyright requesting that it should be removed. A day later, he was told that the image had been deleted and would not be used again. Nevertheless, Visit Wales went on to use the image both online and in print, and as a result, the copyright owner took legal action for breach of copyright. To date, you've spent over £800,000 on lawsuits in the UK and across the world, including over £1,600 flying two of your most senior tourism officials to a hearing in the Netherlands. The bill will soon reach £1 million, as you continue to appeal the judgments against you. This will be almost as much as what was spent five years ago on the entire Dylan Thomas centenary celebrations. How can you justify this waste of money, time and energy of your officials, or is it simply the case that the Welsh Government has nothing better to do?

Well, Llywydd, the Member has no idea at all of the complexities that lie behind this case. He grabs at a headline and he makes an allegation on the floor of the Assembly, which, if he had bothered to master the detail of what lies behind this case, he simply would not make. The Welsh Government is having to defend actions in courts across the world by an individual who is determined to pursue not simply the Welsh Government, but individual Welsh citizens in what I regard as the most vexatious way. We will not allow that to happen. I regret the costs, of course I do, but we are defending a really important principle and we are defending Welsh citizens here as well. If he had grasped the detail of the case, he would not have said what he has said here this afternoon.

Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Before I ask my first question today, with your indulgence, Llywydd, I'd also like to send my condolences to Rod Richards's family. His friends and family have spoken of his quick wit, kindness and love, and his colleagues have continued to admire his skills as a politician, and his passion for politics and what he believed in was clear for all to see. My thoughts and prayers are with his family at this very difficult time.

First Minister, do you believe that your Government is open and transparent?

Llywydd, just before I answer that question, can I recognise what the leader of the opposition has said about Rod Richards, and say that I was glad to have had the opportunity at the weekend to express my condolences to members of his family as well?

And, Llywydd, of course, this Government aims to uphold the highest standards of openness and transparency in everything that we do.

First Minister, in a previous exchange in this Chamber, you said that information is only available because your Government releases it, however, in the last week, two reports have had to be forced out of your Government—the report into kukd.com and the leak inquiry into the sacking of Carl Sargeant. Both of these reports are of an incredibly serious nature, and yet, many people are questioning the level of scrutiny that they can receive, as each one is lacking in detail. It is shocking that the report into the sacking of Carl Sargeant, which led to his death, is barely 350 words long. It is the shortest whitewash in history, First Minister. Now, in that report, the chief security officer used keywords to search the restored mailboxes of those with prior knowledge of the reshuffle. What were those keywords and how can we be confident that they would have captured the right e-mails? The report continues to say that following a questionnaire, where necessary, this was followed up with an interview or interviews. Can you tell us, therefore, how many people were interviewed, and were all staff with prior knowledge interviewed one-to-one? The report concludes that all Welsh Government disclosures were authorised disclosures. Can you tell us who authorised those disclosures?

Llywydd, in answer to the Member's first question, I gave an assurance on the floor of this Assembly that we would publish that report, and that report is now available for scrutiny. As far as the leak inquiry report is concerned, it's not for me to know the answers to the questions that the Member has posed. This was an inquiry not conducted by Ministers, it was conducted in the way that leak inquiry reports are meant to be conducted, and the Cabinet Office has endorsed the way in which that inquiry was carried out. It's not for me to interfere in any way at all in the way that that inquiry was carried out. It's not for me to know who, where, when, why and what; that would be to interfere with the independence of the inquiry process.

On the floor of this Assembly, before Easter, there were requests made to me to publish the leak inquiry report. I thought very hard about those requests, because leak inquiry reports, by convention, are never published. They're never published by his Government in Westminster, for example, but, having given very careful consideration to it, I decided that this was a unique set of circumstances, and the publication of the report was therefore merited. I very deliberately, Llywydd, did not read the leak inquiry report before it was published last week, because I didn't want my decision on publication to be anything to do with its content. I wanted simply to make the decision on the merits of the argument that there was a public interest in it being published. That report has now been published in the way that I promised, and I've got nothing further to add to it.

The second report, if it can be called that, into kukd.com is, shockingly, longer than the leak inquiry, reaching just over 500 words, but is more of a timeline of what action the Government has taken. It has no detail, no specifics on the allegations that have been received and no information on the various investigations that have been undertaken internally. First Minister, I am concerned that it took nearly 18 months for the police to confirm that they did not intend to pursue the case. What information did the internal audit team discover that warranted the file being referred to the police? And finally, First Minister, on 14 May, when I first raised this with you, you said that

'of course—we are committed to learning the lessons from those experiences'.

From this report, First Minister, what lessons can you learn, and do you believe this report represents the right level of scrutiny, and how much money has now been repaid by kukd.com?

Well, Llywydd, internal audit procedures are always designed to make a judgment as to whether or not what may have happened should be of interest to the police. I share the Member's frustration at the length of time that it sometimes takes for police to conduct their enquiries and to decide whether or not they want to bring forward prosecutions. But that is the correct relationship. Internal audit decides whether there is a case to be examined, and then prosecution authorities come to their own separate conclusion as to whether or not to take action of a criminal nature, and that's what happened in this case. I regret some of the time delays that seem to surround some of these sorts of cases, but that is the right way for these things to happen.

Scrutiny of decisions that we make happens all the time. It's part of the way in which decisions are made. There is always internal challenge to them, there are always questions that are asked, and when a decision is made, there is always a scrutiny of the implementation of that decision. In instances where investments are made and things don't work out as we had hoped, then, of course, we go beyond that, and that's what we have done in this case and that's why I listened carefully to what the leader of the opposition said to me some weeks ago, and the report is now available for people to see. We will go on learning the lessons from all these experiences, as any sensible Government would do. The publication of the report is part of that, but there are all the normal ways in which Government assesses the efficiency and the effectiveness of decisions that we have taken, and looks to put right any deficits that are highlighted when we have reports of this sort.

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, you spoke last week about your desire to commence the first part of the Equality Act 2010 in Wales, so this week I'll ask you about section 20 and Schedule 2 to that Act. They provide for statutory investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission when an organisation is believed to have unlawfully discriminated against people because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs. It's happened once before in politics for the BNP. Is the EHRC right now to investigate the Labour Party, and do you agree with Alun Davies when he says he is deeply ashamed of what your party has become?

Llywydd, let me deal with the substantive issue, rather than the peripheral ones, first. The substantive issue is to do with anti-Semitism, and I say here again on the floor of the Assembly, as I've said regularly whenever I've had the opportunity, that anti-Semitism has no part in the Labour Party in Wales and no part in Welsh life, and we will continue to work with Jewish organisations to make sure that the contribution that Jewish communities have made to Wales is properly understood and recognised, and where there are instances of anti-Semitism of any sort, then those must be dealt with, and dealt with rapidly.

The Member asks me about the EHRC inquiry, and he'll be pleased to know, I'm sure, that the Welsh Labour Party is not within the scope of that inquiry.

Thank you for that answer. I wonder why that is thought not to be within the scope. One Labour staffer who bravely spoke to BBC Panorama said investigators were undermined, when given cases, by people wanting leniency on anti-Semitism, then taking those cases away. Often, that was people from Jeremy Corbyn's office, but isn't it also what you did, First Minister? I hear the previous First Minister muttering, but when one of your Assembly Members made what were widely considered to be anti-Semitic remarks, she was suspended from your group and your predecessor referred her to the Labour Party for investigation. Yet, according to The Jewish Chronicle, once you took over as First Minister, and I quote,

'No consideration was given to the fact that UK Labour had yet to conclude their investigation into her remarks', since, and I quote,

'she might have been a bit stupid', but this was 'our Jenny'. The Jewish Chronicle continued:

'Mark (Drakeford) and almost the entire group, barring Alun, Lynne and Vaughan seemed determined to get her back as quickly as they could.'

First Minister, many of your AMs oppose Jeremy Corbyn becoming your leader, and seem none too keen on him becoming Prime Minister, but you were one of his original supporters. Did you know then that he had complained when his council took down a grotesque anti-Semitic mural? Do you agree with him that Hobson's anti-Semitic book, Imperialism, was 'brilliant'? And what do you think Jeremy Corbyn meant when he said Zionists 'don't understand English irony'? First Minister, for how much longer will you and your party and your Government tolerate what your deputy leader rightly describes as anti-Jewish racism?

Well, Llywydd, I'm not going to be drawn into answering questions that have nothing to do with my responsibilities on the floor of this National Assembly. I have set out here my views on anti-Semitism and the way in which these matters are conducted here in Wales. Nothing will deflect me from standing up to those values and those principles, and nothing that the Member wishes to draw me into will be used to try and deflect me from my determination that the rights of all communities here in Wales are respected. Wherever they come from, whatever their heritage, their contribution here in Wales is valued, recognised and celebrated, and that's the sort of culture that I want to see, politically and socially, across the whole of our nation.