Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, following the announcement of President Trump’s racist travel ban, there have been demonstrations throughout the world, including here in Wales, rejecting the idea of division. But the issue is wider than just that specific ban. The whole question of migration has become a toxic debate. Will you join me, and others in this Assembly, to make it clear that Wales remains open for business, open to visitors, and, just as importantly, open to those fleeing persecution? And do you agree with me that this politics of division, on the grounds of national origin, or religion, has no place in Wales, or, indeed, anywhere else?

[Inaudible.]—those sentiments. We are, each and every one of us in this Chamber, the descendants of immigrants—it’s a question of when our families came to this island. Much more unites us as human beings than can possibly divide us. And I do share the view that the current debate in more than one country around the world regarding migration is toxic. It is ironic that the debate is sometimes at its most toxic in countries that are made up of immigrants who are first, second and third generation. That is the irony of this. But the reality is that we know that where nationalism, in terms of extreme right-wing nationalism, is allowed to take a grip, as we saw in the 1930s, the result is calamity.

Thank you for your answer, First Minister, and I would agree with much of the sentiment that you expressed there. Now, one of the factors that was influential in the EU referendum result was the issue of wages and the undercutting of labour. Now, this exploitation is happening, there’s no doubt about that. You’ll be aware, as I am, of unscrupulous employers charging for accommodation and nominally deducting it from people’s wages. Those workers are not in trade unions, and they are often being effectively paid below the minimum wage. Now, migrant workers are being exploited and those employers are also undercutting Welsh workers. So, both types of workers are losing out. Yesterday, we met with the UK Government Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and this point was made, I think it’s fair to say, strongly. This morning, I’ve written to the UK Prime Minister, calling for much stronger enforcement, just as I called on previous Labour Governments to do. It has to be dealt with, because this undercutting and exploitation is being used by some politicians to exploit people’s concerns about migration. Even the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday was joining in, flying in the face of facts and evidence as to why wages have been stagnant. Does the First Minister agree with me that the exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers has to stop, and will he agree to tackle it using whatever powers may be available to him, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations?

Well, indeed. She and I were at that meeting with David Davis yesterday. He agreed—he agreed with what we said, but the question is, of course, agreeing is one thing, action is another. The point was made—and she made the point—that we have not seen prosecutions for breaches of minimum-wage legislation, largely because it’s not quite as straightforward as that. She will know—I’ve mentioned in this Chamber before now—that I have heard believable testimony from Polish workers particularly that they are being paid the minimum wage, but there are other methods that are used in order to deduct money from them, such as unrealistic bonds when they go into accommodation—bonds against damage and, when they get there, they find the accommodation is white furniture, white carpets, white walls, and it’s very difficult to keep it in full order. We made the point, both of us, yesterday, that there’s a huge amount of work to do in order to make sure that these people are brought to account, these unscrupulous employers, because she is quite right—they exploit migrant workers and lower standards, as a result, for workers in the whole of the UK. Unfortunately, many of the people who sit at the moment in the UK Government are not interested in the rights either of migrant workers or British workers.

You’re right, First Minister, there are a number of ways that unscrupulous employers can exploit workers, but this question of the minimum wage is a key one. Last time I looked, HMRC only employed six people to enforce the national minimum wage, and it’s clearly not a priority for the UK Government. There have been minimal prosecutions in recent years, and that was the case under the previous Labour Government as well, it’s fair to say. Will you join me in condemning in the strongest possible terms those politicians who seek to peddle myths about the reasons behind people’s wages being squeezed, because while we are pointing at migrants instead of the Government’s inaction towards rogue employers, we are letting the real culprits off the hook? And will you also commit to this Assembly today to let us know what Welsh Government resources you’ll be able to identify to stop this exploitation so that enforcement and, if necessary, the naming and shaming of rogue employers, can take place?

What I would like to do is to work closely with those communities affected so they don’t feel afraid to come forward to offer their testimony. Quite often, that will be done under the promise of anonymity, and that is something that we will look to take forward. Recently, I finished reading Dennis Skinner’s autobiography. Now, he’s not normally a politician who I would share a huge amount in common with, perhaps, in many ways, but what he did say about Polish workers in the mines after the war was interesting. He said there was no animosity towards them because they were members of a trade union. They were not seen in any way as undercutting wages. They were seen as being in the same position and they had the same protections as workers in the UK, and that’s exactly what we need to get back to. Too many people have low wages, firstly because of austerity, and secondly because they don’t have the support of a trade union. And we know that workplaces that are unionised deliver better terms and conditions for those people who work in those workplaces. That’s why it’s important to make sure that all workers, as much as we can get them to that point, are covered through trade union membership, wherever they come from in the world.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Saturday is World Cancer Day, something that many Members in this Chamber would have been touched by, and I know yourself and my family have had an unfortunate episode where we’ve lost a loved one to cancer. One in two of us going forward will have an episode of cancer in our lives, down from one in three. So, the odds of people getting cancer are increasing by the day and by the week. Regrettably, the Welsh Government’s 62-day target time has not been met since 2008. That aside, there is much good progress as well going on in cancer services across Wales. What is your overview of the delivery of cancer services here in Wales, bearing in mind we have this national cancer day to look forward to on the weekend to reflect on where we are at, and that one in two of us will have an episode of cancer in our lifetime?

I declare an interest here. As Members will know, and as is registered in the register of interests, my wife is employed by Macmillan. What is clear over the next 10 years is that there are two developments that people will find if they are diagnosed with cancer. Firstly, more and more people are ‘living with cancer’—that’s the phrase that is used—cancers that perhaps cannot be cured in the conventional sense of five years’ remission, but that actually allow people to live a normal life and don’t necessarily shorten their lives as a result, with the right level of treatment. Secondly, huge progress is being made—and we are fortunate to have the centre for cancer genetics in Cardiff—in developing treatments that are tailored to the genetic needs of the individual. Cancer treatment has been, for many, many years, a rather blunt instrument. The same kinds of treatments were applied to people over the years. It was more like trial and error. We are at the forefront of the development of cancer genetics and treatment in Wales and I want to make sure that more and more people have the opportunity to be rid of cancer in the course of their lives, but also are able to live with cancer because they have the support, both pharmaceutical and moral, in order to do that.

You are right to point out the positives in cancer treatments and the developments and the way Wales is leading the field in some of these areas. The cancer bank at Velindre hospital is another very good example of pioneering science and technology. Your Government has targets for having a million Welsh speakers by 2050. There’s a statement this afternoon, ‘Towards 2030’, from the education Secretary. There is a goal that the UK Lung Cancer Coalition has, which is to increase the survival rates from lung cancer. Irrespective of where you live across the United Kingdom, the survival rates are very, very poor indeed: 16 per cent in other parts of the United Kingdom, 5 per cent or 6 per cent here in Wales. I think you’ll agree with me that that is something we’ve got to desperately improve. They have a target to increase the survival rate from lung cancer after five years up to 25 per cent by 2025. I’ve highlighted other goals your Government has set. Will you be prepared to set that as a goal for your Government to work to, certainly up to 2021, and hopefully to deliver?

Yes, I think that’s reasonable. We want to see more people live with and, ultimately, survive lung cancer. The survival rates are around about 8 per cent or 9 per cent, if I remember rightly. They’re in single figures and they are low. Much of it is because early diagnosis is so crucial to any type of cancer and the symptoms don’t manifest themselves quite often unless people present as acute cases in the hospitals. I do believe that our GPs are referring people as they should. There is no question to my mind that that is happening and that people are receiving the attention that they need. Where people have complex forms of cancer, of course, sometimes multiple tumours, then it does take some time to begin a course of treatment because that treatment has to be planned in the most effective way for them. But I have no difficulty, of course, in looking to support an initiative that wants to cut the number of deaths through lung cancer in the way that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has described.

Thank you for that commitment, First Minister, because if that commitment is made, it could potentially save 600 lives—people who are dying prematurely through lung cancer at the moment here in Wales. Ultimately, that is a goal, surely, we should all be striving to. Two weeks ago I held and event here for Cancer Patient Voices around cancer services, and at that event, Tom Crosby, who’s the clinical lead for cancer services here in Wales, highlighted the importance of bringing forward a cancer plan to underpin cancer development in services—about bringing oncologists into Wales and developing long-term sustainable services. If we’re going to hit that target of an increase in survival up to 25 per cent by 2025, and if we want to be serious about getting on the track now, we need to bring that plan forward. When people like Tom Crosby are identifying that as a need, I hope you will agree that the Government does need to listen to him and listen to others who are saying that is what is required to drive the strategy forward. Indeed, Macmillan, who you identified in a Member’s interest, identified only last week that there needs to be a dramatic improvement in the delivery of services for patients in 2017. Will you commit to bringing forward a cancer plan along the lines of what Tom Crosby has identified and, indeed, an improvement in services that Macmillan have called for in 2017?

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives will no doubt know that these are issues that are raised constantly in the house where I live, and the points are made very strongly, and rightly so. We will listen, of course, to those who suggest different ways in which cancer can be dealt with. We have our cancer delivery plan, of course. We want to ensure that we have the right level of medical staff in Wales; it’s why we have our recruitment campaign that we launched last year. And, of course, it’s hugely important to work with third sector organisations who provide support for people who are diagnosed. The shock of a cancer diagnosis can often be heightened by the need for treatment, hospital stays, the knock in someone’s income that that makes, the knock in the confidence of an individual that that makes, and so it’s a question as well of making sure people have support outside. I’ve seen, and he will have no doubt seen similar examples, people who, because they have received support and because they have kept their spirits in the right place and their mind in the right place, have survived cancer, whereas other people who have lost their spirit don’t survive, and I’ve seen that. So, it’s hugely important that, whilst he makes the point that we have the right level of medical staff in order to deliver the treatments, we’re also able to ensure that people have the most comprehensive and holistic support around them in order to help them fight the disease as well.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

The First Minister will know that the Ford Motor Company recently cancelled a £1.6 billion proposed investment in Mexico, and decided instead to increase investment in its plant in Michigan by $700 million. This is partly, they say, a vote of confidence in the Trump administration’s policy. One thousand, eight hundred and fifty jobs in Ford in Bridgend depend upon that company, despite their decision to slash a proposed investment by nearly £100 million last September. Does the First Minister think that those jobs are rendered more secure by his insulting call to cancel the proposed invitation to President Trump to make a state visit to the United Kingdom?

If he wishes to be—. May I remind him that the Ford Motor Company has condemned Donald Trump’s comments over the weekend? He might not have seen that, but they have done that. We all see the chaos that has resulted in America. It is for him to act as an advocate for the US Government, not for me. But what I can say to him is that the greatest threat to the Ford engine plant is the possibility of a barrier between it and its only customer in Germany. It exports every single engine that it makes. If there are barriers in place between that engine plant and Germany, Ford will be tempted over the years to shift their production to Craiova in Romania or to other plants in Europe. I want Ford to be on a level playing field with those other plants, and not be put in a position of weakness.

My point is the importance of a continued prospering trade relationship with the United States, which will, to an extent, depend upon having a positive relationship with the United States Government. Now, I appreciate that there will be different views around the Chamber on the domestic policies of the United States Government and, indeed, President Trump’s apparent views on world trade. But given that the United States is Wales’s biggest individual nation trading partner—we exported £2,664 million-worth of exports to that country to June 2016; that’s 22 per cent of all the exports from Wales—is it not vitally important that we should be as positive towards President Trump in our international relations, and therefore welcome a state visit from him later this year?

First of all, it is right that we engage the US Government; I’ll be in America at the end of next month, as I am, at Capitol Hill hosting a reception, working with the Welsh caucus of Congress members as well, and I’ll keep on doing that. But it was Theresa May herself who said that we should speak frankly to friends; she has not done that. She has not done that. And I think it’s hugely important that these points are made. The phrase that I’ve used is that I think it’s very difficult to imagine a successful state visit at the moment, given all the controversy. I’m also surprised at the timing of this. Bill Clinton never had a state visit, nor, to my knowledge, did George Bush, nor did Ronald Reagan. Two other Presidents had state visits, but at least two years after they became President. So, the timing is strange, I have to say. I don’t criticise Theresa May for trying to forge links with the US Government regardless of who is in power; that is the nature of international diplomacy. But it also means that if we are truly to be, as it were, friendly critics—if I can use that phrase—of the US Government, then the British Government surely should not refrain from doing that.

Theresa May, of course, has given friendly criticism to President Trump already in various ways, and I’m not against being candid with our allies, but there is a difference in diplomacy between candid criticism given in a polite and private way and the kind of megaphone diplomacy that is more concerned with grandstanding and virtue signalling, in this country, for domestic political gain.

I think he sat down when he heard the words ‘Nigel Farage’ being uttered in the Chamber—the master of megaphone diplomacy and somebody who is Donald Trump’s representative on earth at the moment. From my perspective, the words I have chosen, I believe, have been appropriate and I think they are self-evident to most people in Britain. As I said yesterday, if circumstances change, the circumstances surrounding the visit may well change as well, although given the events of the last few days—well, Members can make up their own minds about what’s been happening in the US. We still have no real clarity on what it means even for British passport holders, despite what Boris Johnson said yesterday. I think there are issues for the Prime Minister. The first question is: when did she know about this? If it was Friday, did she make representations? When did she know about the conditions that were attached to the executive order and, if so, did she make representations for British citizens and British passport holders? Why, when she was asked about the order, did she simply say, ‘Well, this is a matter for the US’? If it had been any other country, she would not, I believe, have made that response. Why did it take so long for Boris Johnson to get on the phone to clarify the position, even though it appears it’s not quite as clear as he has suggested in Parliament? These are all questions, I think, that the Prime Minister has to answer. Of course we have to have a relationship with the US Government. Of course we will continue our relationship with the US businesses who invest in Wales. Wales is open to US business, but that does not mean that we should say nothing about policies that are put in place with which we disagree. We have not done that with countries like China, we have not done that with countries like Russia. It is right, then, that we should also make our views known when we disagree with something that the US does, rather than be quiet and sit in the corner. That, I believe, is not the right way for the UK to conduct its affairs.