We now move to questions from the party leaders. The Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, do you agree that there needs to be specific legislation covering services for those on the autism spectrum?

Well, the question I always ask is what would legislation add—that’s an open question. And, as the Minister has already indicated, the door is still open in terms of consideration whether legislation would improve the situation for people.

I note your answer, First Minister, and the words of your Minister, but your vote on the motion just over two weeks ago flew in the face of what campaigners actually want to see on this. The National Autistic Society back legislation, which has got cross-party support—I suspect there are even Members on your benches who support legislation—and I’m sure that, like me, you’ve received messages from people seeking an explanation as to that vote two weeks ago. Given that people with autism are let down by so many aspects of the system, can you see why campaigners are pushing for this legislation, or do you think they’re wrong?

Well, the Minister has already said that the door is open. What needs to be examined is whether a law would make a difference. If there’s a law on autism, should there be a law on cancer, should there be a law on other services as well? That’s the balance that has to be struck. There’s no doubt we want to see an improvement in services provided to people. I know full well how difficult it is for people who are coping with relatives who have autism, and we want to see those services improve, which is why we’ve taken steps to do that. What we have to examine is whether a law would actually assist in improving those services. And that’s an open question.

Well, given that the campaigners are pushing for a law and that funding follows legislation, and that your Minister has said that the door is open to this, will you now commit to changing your mind and supporting an autism Bill, should a new motion appear before this Assembly?

Well, we need to consider further what a law would add, as I’ve said. I take the point about services improving. Money doesn’t necessarily follow the law; England, I think, offers plenty of examples of where that hasn’t happened. So, what we want to see is an improvement in services—that’s true—but further work needs to be done in order to examine whether a law would make the difference that campaigners would hope and expect.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, there are challenges across the whole of the United Kingdom in recruiting and retaining teachers in any education system. Sadly, the figures here in Wales for new recruits into the profession are pretty damning, to be honest with you. After five years in the profession, there’s been an increase of 50 per cent in teachers giving up the profession and walking away. There’s been a 16 per cent increase in teachers retiring before retirement. What confidence can we have that your new Government will be able to arrest these figures and actually turn those figures around so that teachers, when they’ve trained and when they’re in the profession, stay within the profession to make the improvements we all want to see in education?

The devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions offers us a great opportunity work with the profession in order to provide a comprehensive package of terms and conditions and pay. It’s exactly what the Scots have done and it’s exactly what we need to do in Wales, and get away from the idea that, somehow, Government and the profession have to be in conflict. I don’t see it that way, and I think the opportunity of devolving terms and conditions is one that presents us with a chance to provide the right package for teachers in Wales.

First Minister, obviously, the Westminster Government announced that amendment to the Wales Bill yesterday, and it is for you to map out exactly how you will use those new powers as a Government when they arrive here. The unions have obviously cast their verdict on that already. But if you look at, actually, people looking to go into training to become a teacher, in this year alone there’s been a 9 per cent decline in applications to become teachers. That is a 36 per cent decline over the last 10 years, of people actually putting themselves forward to begin the training to become a teacher. So, you’re going to get the powers in this Assembly on teachers’ terms and conditions. What exactly are you going to do with them to change these figures?

Not follow what the Government in London is doing, because, clearly, it isn’t working in terms of recruiting and pay and conditions. We want to make sure we have a tailor-made package for teachers in Wales, both in terms of training and in terms of the way that they develop in their profession. We’ve noted the approach that was taken in Scotland, and that is an approach that we will examine, along with others, to make sure that the package is one that is ever more attractive to teachers, because it’s quite clear that when it comes to teachers’ pay and conditions, what exists now is not working for them.

I hope that you will, over the weeks and months ahead now, be able to put some real meat on the bone of exactly what your Government will do over teachers’ pay and conditions with the new responsibilities. I don’t hold the Cabinet Secretary for Education to account for the department at the moment, but Dr Philip Dixon, in fairness, passed a view over the weekend on the capacity within the department of education, and it’s a fair observation, coming from someone who has been on both sides of the fence, if you like, as a senior representative for the ATL union and, I believe, having worked in Government as well over time and worked in the field of politics. So, he has cast a doubt over the capacity within the department. As I said, I don’t cast aspersions on the current Cabinet Secretary, because, in fairness, she has only just come into the role and I’m sure she’s making her own assessments. But it’s a fair observation, to understand exactly whether you have the confidence in the department to drive forward the changes that are required in light of observations that are increasingly becoming louder and louder as we get closer to the PISA review that, ultimately, will benchmark your achievements as First Minister and the Labour Party’s achievements in education under devolution on the international scale?

I would be cautious about using the view of somebody who is clearly disgruntled, who has just written a book and wants to sell it, and is, therefore, making statements in order to sell that book. So, I don’t accept what Dr Philip Dixon is saying. I don’t think that the department has any kind of problem. We have seen, over the last few years, a consistent improvement in standards, consistent investment both in schools and the profession, with new schools being built all across Wales, improvements in GCSE results and improvements in A-levels. All these things have been happening over the last few years. What we have seen, under his party in England, is academisation, a step backwards to grammar schools and a failure to invest in schools. That is not a route that we want to take in Wales. One thing I can say, and I say this absolutely clearly, is that, as is the case in other areas where pay and conditions have been devolved, there is no question—no question at all—of teachers in Wales being paid less than teachers in England. That is simply not going to happen. We will ensure that our teachers are well rewarded for the skills that they have and ensure that the profession is able to practise in Wales with the full support of the Government. I have absolutely every confidence in the department in Welsh Government.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Is the First Minister feeling a bit more cheerful after our week in recess, because we’ve had three very good pieces of news for the UK economy, and hence the Welsh economy as well, in the meantime? Nissan has approved a plant for 600,000 cars a year to be made in the north-east of England; the French insurance giant, Axa, has, after having put on ice its building of its tallest tower in the City of London, decided to go ahead with it; and, in the three months to September, the UK growth figures were positive: 0.5 per cent growth compared with the negative forecasts of six months ago by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. So, doesn’t this show, actually, that post-Brexit Wales and the UK have vast opportunities for improving the health and well-being of the whole population of this country?

Well, Brexit hasn’t happened yet, as the leader of UKIP knows. The increase in the economy was driven almost entirely by service industries and not by manufacturing, and driven almost entirely by the slide in the pound, which is not a factor that we can rely on in the long term. As far as Nissan is concerned, anybody would welcome the announcement made by Nissan. What is curious is that we have no idea what exactly was said to Nissan. I suspect that the UK Government revealed part of its negotiating strategy to Nissan, but won’t do that to the UK Parliament. I do not believe for one second that Nissan were persuaded to invest in Sunderland on the vague promise that the UK Government would try not to have tariffs imposed on the automotive sector. Now, I agree; I don’t want to see tariffs imposed on the automotive sector, but what about steel? What about aerospace? What about every other sector in the Welsh economy that’s important? That’s been ignored so far. It shows a troubling, piecemeal approach to this, rather than there being an overarching strategy. And, I’ll tell you, it contradicted directly what the Prime Minister said to me last Monday. I asked her directly to rule out any deal—any trade deal with the EU—that included tariffs. She wouldn’t do it. She wouldn’t do it. A few days later, all of a sudden, tariffs were ruled out for the automotive sector. It’s a complete and utter shambles.

Well, it’s not surprising that the Prime Minister is not going to reveal her negotiating strategy to the First Minister of the Welsh Government, who is a member of another party. [Interruption.] It is not for me to speak for Theresa May—[Interruption.]

Let’s hear the question.

But what this does show, does it not, is that Brexit offers an opportunity, as well as a challenge, and that if we approach the negotiations in the spirit of optimism and positivity, then we are likely to achieve a great deal more? The trouble with the First Minister is that he’s a moaning Minnie. He only sees the problems. He doesn’t see the opportunities. As regards steel and the other industrial sectors, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that our industries can’t be more competitive than those across the channel, particularly because not being part of the eurozone gives us a more competitive currency.

UKIP seem to be arguing that we can be competitive with tariffs; I can tell you that we can’t. We export 30 per cent of the steel that we produce and there’s no way that we can be competitive with tariffs. Automotive cannot be competitive with tariffs. Aerospace, Airbus, cannot be competitive with tariffs. He’s heard me say several times that, to me, if there is a deal on the table that doesn’t include tariffs, that’s immensely helpful. Immensely helpful. But, I have to say to him, I don’t expect the Prime Minister to reveal her negotiating strategy because I don’t believe she has one. I said this to her, and I said, ‘Look, at the very least, give us an idea what your general principles are.’ ‘Don’t know.’ Why? Because they cannot agree with each other. If you speak to David Davis, the answer you get every single time is, ‘It’ll be fine.’ Nothing. Nothing else more than that. Now, some advocate free trade agreements. Free trade agreements might be good with some countries but not with others. A free trade agreement with Mexico is an invitation to destroy manufacturing in the UK, which is exactly what people voted against in the referendum. One of the issues that people were concerned about was free trade and the loss of jobs. Free trade agreements with the wrong countries end up in a situation where you can destroy your manufacturing industry. So, they’re not the panacea that they appear to be.

Well, as it happens, we do have a free trade agreement with Mexico. That’s one of the two agreements they have managed to negotiate in the last 50 years. So, that rather invalidates the First Minister’s point, doesn’t it?

But, there was another interesting event that happened during the course of the last week. I don’t know if the First Minister saw the election result in Lithuania where the Lithuanian Peasants and Green Union party went from having only one seat in the Parliament to having 54 out of 141, having got 40 per cent of the vote. The debate in Lithuania on immigration is the mirror image of what it is in this country. We have been debating the problems of immigration; they have been debating the problems of emigration because they’ve lost 15 per cent of their population in the last 10 years, since the Labour Government opened the floodgates in 2004 and allowed 150,000 Lithuanian citizens, in effect, to emigrate to this country. So, does the First Minister see the opportunity here with a country like Lithuania, which sees free movement of labour as being part of their problem, albeit for the opposite reasons that we see it in this country, and that we may be able to form alliances with countries like Lithuania to achieve a common objective, albeit for different reasons?

So, the answer is to build a wall. I mean, he seems now to be the inheritor of Khrushchev, and worrying that the Berlin wall disappeared so that we could not prevent this flood of people coming from eastern Europe. Well, if that’s the policy he wants to espouse, then, fine. The reality is that there are plenty of people—. There are 1.2 million—1.2 million—UK citizens who live in the rest of the European Union. Are we to say to them, well, actually, they should be thrown out of the countries where they live and they should return back to the UK? He used the word ‘floodgates’. He used the word ‘floodgates’. He knows how inflammatory that word is. He cannot moan—. Talk about moaning; he cannot moan, once he’s used the word ‘floodgates’. The reality is that the farming industry will still need people from eastern Europe to work in the farming industry, whatever happens with Brexit; they will not be able to recruit locally.

I take the point, of course, that people have been unhappy with the current system of freedom of movement. That, to me, is apparent in the vote, but the reality is there will still be a need for people to move across boundaries in order to provide the labour that industry needs. Farming won’t survive without the labour that it can get in from eastern Europe, because they can’t recruit people locally. Every farmer knows that. And so, what we need is a sensible, humane and rational approach to freedom of movement and not talk about floodgates and stopping people from coming in and, effectively, building walls. The last thing humanity needs in the current crisis in the world is to build more walls and barriers.