The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt.

The next item on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Motion NDM6077 Simon Thomas

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the promises made to the people of Wales by those who campaigned for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

2. Calls on the UK Government to ensure that such promises are fulfilled following withdrawal from the EU, including that:

a) an additional £490 million a year will be made available for the Welsh NHS;

b) the level of funding Wales currently receives from EU programmes will be maintained;

c) the direct payment support received by Welsh farmers will be at least equal to that received through the Common Agricultural Policy; and

d) the right of EU citizens at the time of Brexit to remain in the UK without fear or hindrance is guaranteed.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move the motion in the name of Simon Thomas and I’m happy to support the amendment, amendment 1, in the name of Jane Hutt.

Our motion today comes as Theresa May becomes the new Prime Minister of the UK. She has said that she intends to implement the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. That withdrawal will occur after a sustained period of negotiations, with issues such as single-market access, immigration and the status of EU and UK citizens all up for discussion. The outgoing Prime Minister said that Wales could play a role in these negotiations. It’s vital, therefore, that we, as Wales—all of Wales—make the case for retaining as many as possible of the benefits that we currently gain from being a member of the European Union.

Plaid Cymru will do whatever we can to influence the Welsh negotiating position, to unashamedly fight for Wales’s corner, and to stand up at all times for Wales’s national interests.

In part, the referendum result was a product of the inequalities that have built up over many decades. The UK has the deepest regional inequality of any current EU member state. Brussels has become a scapegoat for anger and frustration, where whole sections of society feel as though they’ve lost control of their lives. Voting seems to get you nowhere in a first-past-the-post system, and, when people are elected to this institution, for example, it doesn’t have the powers that we need to fix all of the problems that our people face.

I have a lot of sympathy with the perception that many in our communities feel powerless and ignored. Outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron said today that he hoped that people would see that he left behind, in his words,

‘a stronger country…and more chances to get on in life.’

But that’s false, isn’t it? Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a country, it is a state, and the integrity of that state has been weakened by this referendum result. Now, the UK could lose a significant part of its territory and it could cease to exist. In terms of having more chances to get on in life, there are areas in this country, in Wales, where better job opportunities are available, but there are also areas where there’s a sense of prolonged decline and neglect despite, in many cases, those areas having qualified numerous times for EU economic development aid.

Will you take an intervention?

Sure.

Do you accept some responsibility from your party’s perspective, given that your Deputy First Minister, who was in office for five years, did nothing to improve the prosperity of those parts of Wales to which you refer?

My predecessor was in office for one term, with very few economic levers, actually, to make an impact on a recession and the austerity policies that were being implemented by your party in Westminster.

The areas where there are the highest numbers of people who voted to leave are the areas where there are most boarded-up shops or banks, where bus routes and community facilities have been lost, and where wages are lower than the Welsh average, and the Conservatives have to take a large amount of responsibility for that situation. Those areas that have been entitled to significant EU funds, precisely because of their relative poverty and disadvantage, are also areas with low levels of immigration; there are few opportunities to attract migrants to work, yet the perception is of an immigration problem being great.

Let’s not forget that people were told that pulling out of the EU would save money. Remember that promise on that bus—£350 million per week would be available, they told us. Wales would receive £490 million per year, so the leader of the Welsh Conservatives told us. Well, we look to him now to make sure that the promise is kept, to use whatever influence that he might have within his party to make sure that that money is in place, and we will keep making this point—not because we’re desperate for handouts, but because people voted on the premise that that money would be available for their NHS and to restore the facilities that they have seen disappear as a result of the Tories’ austerity.

We also expect to see an arrangement to guarantee the direct payment support to Welsh farmers. That industry is at risk if those guarantees are not there. And we want the rights of EU citizens to remain in Wales to be guaranteed too. We’ve got 500 doctors from other EU countries working in the Welsh NHS, and that’s before we even consider EU nationals working in other public services and in our private sector too.

Would she give way on that point?

Sure.

To take you back to the point you made just a moment ago on farming subsidy, would she agree with me that it is not simply a debating point, it is a competitive imperative that, in this transition period going forward, not only in the Brexit negotiations but subsequently, we cannot have our farmers and rural communities at a competitive disadvantage to what is happening across Offa’s Dyke in England? So, we have to have that money guaranteed, and we have to have it here to make the choices of how we use it in Wales for the people of Wales.

I would agree with that 100 per cent. Of course, our farming industry is in jeopardy as things stand, and those guarantees need to be there in order to provide guarantees for that industry in the long term.

EU nationals are a net financial, cultural and social benefit to our country and none of us should tire from making that point, and you will hear us make that point time and time again.

Llywydd, our calls for having everything done to protect the Welsh national interest are already having an impact. Why else would the Secretary of State for Wales try to play down the need to replace our EU funding, saying that we need a wider debate about the root causes of poverty and disadvantage? Well, damn right we do. And the replacement of our EU funds is a bare minimum part of that discussion; those funds are the starting point.

We also need real economic levers to be available to this Government and to this Assembly, and we must now push for a full regional policy in the UK for as long as Wales remains a part of that union.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Let me finish by saying that 23 June changed everything. Wales now needs strong leadership and vision to deal with the hand that we’ve been dealt, and Plaid Cymru is ready to do whatever we can to make sure that that is provided.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Gwelliant 1—Jane Hutt

Add as new sub-point at end of motion:

all funding arrangements in the post-Brexit era are predicated on a fair funding framework and a major revision of the Barnett Formula.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I just want to endorse the comments made by Leanne Wood in opening this debate by mentioning particularly the effect on, and the need to protect, agriculture, fisheries and the environment more generally.

We are in a position at present where Wales, Welsh farmers and rural Wales receive something in the region of £250 million per annum in direct payments to farmers, and, in addition to that, there is some €655 million—the value of the euro, of course, does mean that the pounds are less at the moment—for the rural development programme within the common agricultural policy for the period up to 2020. Of course, if the new Prime Minister does want to implement Brexit in the way that she has suggested, then Wales, along with the rest of the UK, will leave that subsidy system before the end of that period. Therefore, it is important that we do take action post haste in order to understand the impact of this on our agriculture and our environmental sectors and make preparations for it.

Within the European Union, as we have been members for so long, the framework for animal welfare, animal health, and also the framework for environmental policy and legislation have all been made within the EU. Although we have almost universally—certainly in the Assembly, I think—been supportive of that legislation, it stems from Europe, and that’s the basis on which we have legislated. Therefore, it’s very important that the pledges on maintaining direct subsidies at the current level are kept. It’s important that that happens in the context of the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty within the market at the moment, and, of course, uncertainty undermines the market.

Something in the region of 80 per cent to 90 per cent of farm income in Wales is derived from direct payments. Now, perhaps that isn’t a situation that one would want to see in the long term in any case, but the fact is that we have to move from that situation in just two years now, and that is a far swifter process than we had anticipated. The prices for Welsh produce are very low, although there has been some improvement in the dairy sector.

So, it is true to say that withdrawing from the European Union does mean that we can draw up policies for agricultural support, food production support, and fisheries and environmental support anew. That’s true, but Plaid Cymru is of the view that we shouldn’t give up, in any way, on the progress that has been made, particularly in the areas of agriculture and the environment, over the past 40 years. So, we want to ensure that the transfer happens and ensures that the current agricultural support and legislation continue without any break.

Rwy’n credu ei bod yn bwysig tanlinellu hefyd fod y cymorth, a’r gefnogaeth barhaus, i amaethyddiaeth Cymru wedi ei gadarnhau cynifer o weithiau yn ystod y refferendwm blaenorol hwn. Er enghraifft, dywedodd David Davies AS wrth BBC Radio Wales fod yn rhaid i ni yn gyntaf oll sicrhau bod yr arian a oedd yn mynd i mewn i gronfeydd strwythurol a’r PAC yn parhau.

Dywedodd George Eustice, sef Gweinidog ffermio y DU ond un a oedd yn ymgyrchu dros adael, y byddai Cymru yn cael ‘llawn cymaint o gymorth’ ag yr oeddem yn ei gael ar y pryd, a dywedodd, pe baem yn gadael—ac fe wnaethom, wrth gwrs—y gallai hyn olygu mwy o arian a gwell cefnogaeth i ffermwyr Cymru:

os ydym yn pleidleisio dros adael... bydd Llywodraeth y DU yn parhau i roi o leiaf cymaint i ffermwyr Cymru a’r amgylchedd... ag y maent yn ei gael yn awr.

Dyna oedd addewid y Llywodraeth gyfredol sy’n parhau. Dywedodd arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr—y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig—mewn ymateb i’r dyfyniad penodol hwnnw:

Erbyn hyn mae gennym warant gadarn y byddai ffermwyr Cymru yn parhau i gael o leiaf yr un faint o ran cymorth.

Felly, addewid gan Lywodraeth y DU, ‘gwarant gadarn’ gan y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig, ac mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau nad oes dim yn cael ei naddu, pan fydd y DU yn gadael yr UE, oddi ar y cymorth y bydd ffermwyr yn ei gael ac y bydd ein hamgylchedd yn ei gael a’r cymorth y bydd ein cymunedau gwledig yn ei gael. Dyna pam ei bod mor drist gweld bod Ian Lucas, cydweithiwr Llafur y Gweinidog sy’n gyfrifol am yr amgylchedd yn y lle hwn, wedi gofyn heddiw yn Nhŷ’r Cyffredin i’r Gweinidog Gwladol yn Swyddfa Cymru, Guto Bebb—gofynnodd:

A yw’r Gweinidog yn cytuno bod gadael yr UE yn cynnig cyfle euraidd i asesu lefel y cymhorthdal ​​a delir i ffermio yng Nghymru i weld a oes modd gwario’r arian yn fwy effeithiol ac effeithlon mewn meysydd eraill?

Felly, mae’r Blaid Lafur yn San Steffan—pa Blaid Lafur, nid wyf yn gwybod gan fod cymaint ohonynt y dyddiau hyn—mae’r Blaid Lafur yn San Steffan yn fwriadol, eisoes, yn cwestiynu a defnyddio gadael yr UE fel cyfle i dorri cymorth i ffermwyr Cymru. Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n warthus ac rwy’n gobeithio y bydd y Gweinidog, wrth ymateb i’r ddadl hon, yn datgysylltu ei hun oddi wrth y sylwadau hynny.

During the Senedd debate on the EU a few weeks ago, Dafydd Elis-Thomas said that, if Wales voted to leave, it would be a consequence of the failure of the political class as a whole, and I reported to this Chamber in that debate the distance the people of Caerphilly felt, both literally and figuratively, from decision makers in the European Union. But today I feel the breadth of this perceived distance is wider with Westminster and sometimes this Parliament of Wales and every Member here also struggling to act as a bridge between the people of our constituencies and the decisions taken in their names. Yet, all of us want to represent our constituents and our communities and almost all of us are of our communities. If we are to do our work then we must be able to speak frankly without too much concern about consequent party politics. I think sometimes we need to find a balance between blaming each other for the outcomes that have happened as a result of policies and relevant debating points and scrutiny, and I think sometimes we don’t get that balance right.

I said several times during the Assembly election campaign and during the referendum campaign that I would engage with my principal challengers, Plaid Cymru, without hesitation if it made a difference to the lives of the people I represent, and I think Steffan Lewis can testify to that. Indeed, I’ve held constructive conversations with members of that party and I intend to continue to do so.

One of the consequences of the EU referendum may give us an opportunity to bridge that political divide further that was laid so bare by the campaign. The UK cross-party Constitution Reform Group, of which I believe our own David Melding is a member, proposes a new Act of union that gives each nation and region full sovereignty over their own affairs—a federated UK reimagined and re-empowered. We should look upon these ideas with interest.

In the meantime, and by the same token as the leader of the opposition has said, the new Prime Minister must work with our elected Government here to ensure that Wales does not lose out by our leaving the European Union. A distinctive Welsh exit plan and our economic strategy must be integral to the negotiations to leave the European Union. This motion today sets some vital red lines in these negotiations and my friend the leader of the house’s amendments bolsters that with a clear demand for fairer funding.

But, I would say, at the referendum vote count in Caerphilly I was struck by the wild celebrations of UKIP members, which I didn’t think was appropriate given the fact that UKIP clearly had no plan as to what would happen next. Nigel Farage said the pledge to guarantee £350 million a week for the NHS was one of the mistakes made by the ‘leave’ campaign, yet he and the rest of the UKIP members were silent about this absurd pledge during the campaign. I suspect that, actually, it was because they hadn’t thought that far ahead and didn’t really expect to win the referendum.

But, people all over Wales care passionately about our NHS and what we now need is clarity over the funding arrangements, as outlined in the motion and as promised by members of the UK Government.

Election campaigns can be life-enhancing, engaging experiences and a chance to make the case to the country, but it appears to me that the referendum campaign was none of those things. Today, we feel the divisive effects on our nation. And I’m reflecting on what Leanne Wood said about proportional representation; I’m of an open mind, the only thing that concerns me is, perhaps in 2011, if we’d had a truly proportional system to elect to this place, we may have seen BNP members elected at that point, as they were to the London Assembly. I’m not suggesting that’s something that we should rule out—proportional representation—but it’s a consequence we should bear in mind.

We should all, therefore, bear in mind the concerns about hate crimes that are being perpetrated across the country in the wake of the vote. In Gwent, there was a 46 per cent increase in hate crime in the run-up to the referendum, and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent, my excellent predecessor as Assembly Member for Caerphilly, Jeff Cuthbert, has rightly said that racial abuse will not be tolerated by the force. I’m pleased my local authority in Caerphilly continues to engage with residents to combat hate crime and I intend to support a motion to that effect from Caerphilly councillors, in the name of councillor Roy Saralis, at full council next week, which will also be supported by Plaid Cymru. Sometimes, I think it would be better if we thought more about these things than the silly things that we try to find to divide ourselves during local election campaigns.

We live in politically volatile times, but regardless of the outcome of the referendum result, we must find a way to work together on issues of common purpose. We must be able to serve our party’s core principles and our people without creating needless division and we must have a clear plan for leaving the EU that benefits Wales. That is clear in this motion and the amendment. But we must also ensure that the time ahead benefits the people of our nation, even if that means a new understanding of nationhood. That perhaps is an issue for a wider debate.

I want to focus my contribution on the Welsh steel industry because, as we know, various ‘jam tomorrow’ claims were made by pro-Brexiters in the run-up to the referendum—claims that took hold with some steelworkers, it has to be said, in terms of how they voted in the referendum.

So, it now falls to those who campaigned to leave the EU—those still left at the tillers of power, few though they are—to make good on those assertions. So, let’s start with a recap of those assertions: (1) that meaningful US-style tariffs on Chinese and other dumped steel will be introduced; (2) that, unencumbered by unpopular state aid rules, money can be offered to Port Talbot and other plants to assist them in becoming more competitive; and (3) that free access to the European markets can continue unchecked. It’s important to note at this point that the steel industry sees opportunities as well as challenges following Brexit.

Some in the industry have told me that a weaker pound would aid competitiveness in the short and medium term, and that new trade relationships with the EU in the medium and long term, along with revised rules of support from the UK Government post-2020, could be made. Now, there are challenges—and ‘leave’ advocates must answer to these—and they include customer uncertainty, a lessened UK influence in EU policy-making, a new trade relationship with the EU—both potentially a good and bad thing, it would appear—and reduced access to research and development. This last factor puts proposals for a steel research centre in South Wales West in a partnership between Port Talbot and Swansea University’s innovation campus severely at risk.

Brexit supporters have pointed, hopefully, to 500 per cent-plus tariffs imposed by the US on Chinese rebar, amongst other things. But what I’d like to hear is how that is going to be replicated by a UK Government whose MEPs not only voted against far more modest EU proposals, as did UKIP, but whose Ministers actively wrecked the plan in the Council of Ministers.

When you have a Minister for industry who doesn’t believe in a strategy for industry, because of his free market ideals, then even the most optimistic ‘leave’ campaigner has to admit there’s still some more work to be done in persuading others.

We know that Port Talbot’s competitive edge would be greatly improved by the construction of a new power station that would slash its energy costs whilst reducing emission levels—not that we need to worry about such pesky EU-set rules anymore, of course. The cost could be as high as £250 million. Now, is this a lot of money? Well, no; not when you compare it against the cost of losing Port Talbot, which Professor Gerry Holtham has estimated accounts for around 6 per cent of Welsh GVA. The calculations I made on the back of a napkin puts that at around £3.5 billion, give or take a few million.There are around 16,000 directly or indirectly employed at the site, or supplying or contracting to it. That’s around another £435 million.

All in all, that could mean as much as £4 billion for the Welsh economy. So, we look forward to seeing the money for the new power plant coming forward pretty quickly, given that speed is of the essence. Anything else would amount to nothing less than a gross dereliction of responsibility to those people who live and work in Port Talbot.

It would also be good to hear how we’ll make up the huge funding shortfall in research and development so as not to miss the kind of opportunity I outlined earlier—the only steel centre in Europe within sight of blast furnaces in Port Talbot. It sounds too good to be missed.

I said last week how Wales is disproportionately reliant upon exports of iron and steel, as compared to the rest of the UK. Last year we imported £400 million-worth of iron and steel, but we exported £1 billion-worth—two and a half times as much. Considering that sum, some 69 per cent—over two thirds—goes to the European market. One third of Tata Port Talbot sales are within the EU.

Steelworkers in Port Talbot and all of Wales have voted, and now they expect results. It’s time for Brexit to deliver for the Welsh steel industry so that it’s successful in future.

Although many supported a ‘remain’ vote, Wales has voted to leave the EU and all views must be respected and heard. As negotiations in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU progress, Wales will need strong leadership that reflects the wishes of its people and ensures the best deal for our nation in this new era. The Welsh Conservative group places a high value on access to the single market, recognising that access to markets is also a two-way process, and many EU nations depend heavily on both the Welsh and UK marketplace. The Welsh Conservative group will be resolute in ensuring the best deal for Wales in a post-Brexit UK, including in relation to funding streams. We do believe that Wales must benefit from at least as much funding as we move forward, and we will also be supporting the Welsh Government amendment.

Ultimately, however, a primary aim must be to close the prosperity gap between Wales and other European nations, which has enabled Wales’s access to many EU funding streams over many years. We are committed to ensuring Welsh farming flourishes. The farming community in Wales and Welsh decision makers must now be at the centre of the development of a new support system that recognises the distinct challenges faced by farmers in Wales and provides the financial support necessary to support the industry’s long-term sustainable future.

Welsh representation must have a central input as part of the negotiation process for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, where all UK nations face unique, separate challenges. The rights of all EU citizens already living legally in the UK must be protected and incidences of racist or xenophobic attacks following the referendum result deserve the strongest condemnation.

Britain is one of the world’s largest economies, a global country—or state, depending on your interpretation—that already conducts more trade outside the EU than any other member state. Outside the EU, we do regain the freedom to forge trade deals while continuing to trade with European partners. Green shoots are beginning to emerge, as other countries and states start to realise the possibility of free-trade deals with the UK and its constituent nations. President Obama stated that the special relationship between the US and UK will endure, and members of the US Congress are already openly and seriously discussing the possibilities of a US-UK trade deal.

India is looking forward to striking a deal. The EU’s last attempt to deal with India began nine years ago and has stalled, with no obvious prospect of resumption. But, as India’s Deputy Minister of Finance has said, the UK is going to look to build its relationships with the rest of the world. The German Federal Ministry of Finance advised the EU to enter into negotiations aimed at making the UK an associated partner country of the trade bloc, coming after German industry giants pressed their Government to strike a free-trade deal in the event of the UK leaving the EU. New Zealand First party leader Winston Peters said that a trade deal with the UK is an absolute priority. Labour Party leader Andrew Little suggested that New Zealand should draw on its long and historic relationships with the UK to ensure future trade, and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull suggested that New Zealand and Australia could team up to negotiate a single deal with the UK.

Ghana was quick out of the traps to propose a trade deal. Ghanaian Minister for Foreign Affairs Hanna Tetteh said she was working up a delegation already. In Canada, the Justin Trudeau administration said:

‘The UK and the EU are important strategic partners for Canada with whom we enjoy deep historical ties and common values. We will continue to build relations with both parties as they forge a new relationship.’

While Iceland was the first country to offer a trade deal to Britain, Mexico has beaten it by already drafting a trade pact between the countries. The President of Switzerland has reached out to the UK and said, ‘We are interested and open.’ Business Secretary Sajid Javid revealed that South Korea contacted the UK Government to begin bilateral trade talks as soon as possible.

As Henry Ford said:

‘Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.’

If we believe, opportunity beckons. If we don’t, failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. As the company I visited in Flintshire on Monday told me: you don’t need to be in the EU to have a future. They are switching their French production to north Wales. Speaking today, Prime Minister Theresa May referred to the need to negotiate the best deal for Britain in leaving the EU, and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world, adding:

‘Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it.’

Let’s do that.

Thank you very much. Adam Price.

Thank you, madam deputy speaker. As the tectonic plates are shifting around us, I wonder whether this is an opportunity for a paradigm shift in our thinking as well. It is absolutely right—and there is broad consensus, clearly—that Wales should not be further impoverished by the decision made through the referendum. But I think it’s also true that, while ensuring that we receive the cash that we were promised is necessary, it’s not sufficient, is it? I mean, we achieved Objective One status in 1999. We won the lottery of European structural funds. And yet, over the period since then, what did we see? Wales’s income per capita actually fell, both relative to the UK and the EU. So, I think this is an opportunity for us to rethink our approach. I think the spirit has to be that what we are looking for—and we are looking now not to Brussels but to London—. We are not looking for charity. We are looking for help to help ourselves. Part of that is financial investment, but part of it is giving us the power, actually, to regenerate our own economy. In the new environment—. Of course, we don’t know what the final terms of the Brexit deal will be, and that will influence the powers that are available to us. But even if we are in the EEA and EFTA, you have the ability to vary VAT. Wouldn’t that be a useful power—not to have left at Westminster, but to be brought here, so that we could actually have a lower VAT rate for our tourism industry? We could look at actually boosting our construction industry through having a lower VAT rate for refurbishment of homes. We could look at corporation tax. We saw Ireland just post a 26.4 per cent increase in GDP, an all-round record, I think, in Europe, largely through inversions, as they’re called—basically, companies moving their headquarters in to Ireland because of the attractive corporation tax rates. Wouldn't it be a legitimate lever of regional policy for us to be able to attract some of those financial services companies that are in a huddle at the moment in the Square Mile and in Canary Wharf actually a bit further west and to say, ‘Well, come to Wales, actually; we can provide you with an attractive business environment’?

Think what we could do in terms of other business taxes. Research and development tax credits—you know, we want to build innovative businesses. We want, actually, instead of playing catch-up, we want to play leapfrog; we want to be ahead of the curve. We could use some of these new freedoms that would be available to us, whatever the terms of the final deal, in order to create that kind of competitive advantage. The patent box was introduced by the Chancellor that gives tax breaks, basically from future income, from patented innovation. In the Netherlands, they apply that to software. Now, if we had that ability in Wales, think of what that could do to an already very, very dynamic emerging sector in terms of software start-ups in Wales. So, I think this is the kind of thinking—you know, in chaos and in crisis, it's not one that I would have chosen, but, actually, change also creates opportunities, and maybe we need to, as well as defending absolutely and holding people to account as to the promises they made and making sure that Wales is not disadvantaged financially, maybe we need to get a bit more creative as well and think about what we could do differently that would give us an edge, that would make Wales the place to be in terms of the businesses of the future. I think that with that kind of positive mindset, we can inspire our own people and our own businesses, and also attract would-be entrepreneurs and innovators into Wales as well.

I would also like to thank Plaid Cymru for the chance to discuss the opportunities for Welsh finances following the decision to leave the European Union. We join the other parties in calling upon the UK Government to ensure that Wales benefits from the decision to stop haemorrhaging billions of pounds a year to the EU. However, unlike some Members in the Chamber, UKIP firmly believes that Brexit offers huge opportunities for Wales. The EU doesn't generously give us billions of pounds; they simply return a small proportion of our own money. Each year, the UK gives the EU £13 billion, and we get back around £4 billion in farm subsidies and EU schemes. The UK Government must ensure that Wales is not only gets its share of moneys set aside for EU funding programmes, but also a fair share of the £9 billion it costs us to be members of the EU club.

I'm not sure where Plaid got its figures from. I'm not a mathematician, but my calculation of our share of the £9 billion is £432 million, given that the population of Wales is 4.8 per cent of the UK's total, and not the £490 million quoted. While I would love to see all that money set aside for the NHS, as I am the NHS spokesman for UKIP, I realise that there are also other competing priorities. We are facing a crisis in social care, given cuts to local authority budgets in recent times. We have a shortfall in education spending in Wales. We need major infrastructure upgrades and investment. And we need to spend more on improving mental health outcomes. An additional £432 million will go a long way to addressing these problems.

We have a new Prime Minister who has already stated that we must maximise the benefits of leaving the EU. She has indicated that her Government may relax her predecessor's austerity push. UKIP wish her well and we look forward to receiving her assurances that Wales will benefit from the decision to withdraw from the money pit that is the EU. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Well, it’s clear from the debate this afternoon that the impact of the decision taken on 23 June continues to be felt keenly, and that the extent of the economic, political, constitutional and social challenges are increasingly making themselves clear. To wrestle with the consequences of the referendum vote is not to contest its outcome, but nor is it to turn our back on those powerful arguments that made the case for Wales’s position in Europe.

As a Government, we are now focused on doing everything within our power to mitigate any negative effects and to ensure the best possible outcome for Wales. During the referendum campaign, substantial promises were made by members of the ‘leave’ side, as Simon Thomas so well illustrated in his contribution. Many Welsh voters will have made their decisions based on those promises, and it is interesting to see that it is a shared ambition across this Chamber that those promises should be honoured, and honoured in full.

A key argument used to promote the ‘leave’ side was claims about the size of the UK’s contribution to the EU budget, with those heavily publicised promises that this money would be spent on the NHS, as well as another long list of causes to which it was to be applied. Now, the Wales share of what was claimed to be £350 million a week would indeed make a huge and welcome impact. The speed with which those who stood in front of buses plastered with this claim have since distanced themselves from it has been one of the phenomena of the post-referendum period.

Now, from an EU-funding perspective, the decision to leave the European Union will hit Wales hard. Wales currently benefits from in excess of £600 million per year of EU funds that support economic, social and rural development. Now, once again, clear promises were made by the ‘leave’ campaign that Wales would not lose out as a result of the UK coming out of the European Union. The First Minister has already written to the then Prime Minister asking that that guarantee—that solid guarantee that we were offered by the leader of the Conservatives here in Wales—must be honoured, and for every penny of EU funds to be replaced so that Wales does not lose out. The First Minister has called on the UK Government to ensure the continuation of funds for the period up to 2020 to be honoured as well, whether via the European Union itself or via the replacement of Treasury funding. Failure to secure replacement funding would disproportionately disadvantage Wales, and it is clear that these funds have made major positive effects, creating jobs, supporting thousands of businesses and helping people into work and training.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, that was quite certainly the message from partners around the table at the extraordinary programme monitoring committee meeting that I chaired on Friday of last week. The private sector, public authorities, universities, the third sector, farming interests—as set out this afternoon by Huw Irranca-Davies and Simon Thomas—all were united in a call for the excellent work that they have undertaken to be continued until the natural end of this round of structural funds. That was echoed in Leanne Wood’s call for a united position in arguing Wales’s corner in the circumstances we now face. [Interruption.] Of course.

Just on that point, we’ve seen today Alun Cairns, for example, as the Secretary of State, argue that this is no longer about money, and we should have this big debate about what should replace structural funds, and though I’m up for learning from the fact that structural funds did not take us from the position we were in in 1999 to the position we want to be in today, can I just support what he’s just said? We want that faith to be kept to the end of the natural part of these programmes, till 2020, and I hope that the Conservative Party will make that very clear in forthcoming debates.

Well, I absolutely agree, and I hope they do, too, because the partners who were around the table at that programme monitoring committee, who actually deliver these projects, who employ real people providing real services to people who need them so much—they’re not interested in a big debate. They are interested in knowing that the funds on which they rely will be guaranteed in the way that they have been promised. Simon Thomas is absolutely right to make that point.

When the Prime Minister, in announcing his own leave decision, makes a commitment that the devolved administrations would be fully engaged within future negotiations, then we are entitled to expect just that. An offer to be fully informed of developments will not be good enough. We expect a seat at the table on the timing and terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in the way that Hefin David described. We will use that opportunity to ensure that the interests of Wales are protected, that the promises made to our citizens are kept and that Wales gets the best possible deal.

Llywydd, it’s in that context that the Government has laid an amendment, which we believe strengthens still further the original motion, and I’m grateful for the indications of support for the amendment this afternoon, because a proper deal for Wales on European funding has to be based on a fair funding framework and fair funding flows into the responsibilities discharged by this National Assembly.

I listened very carefully to the thoughtful analysis set out by Leanne Wood of the factors that influenced the way people voted on 23 June. Some of the things that flowed from that debate have been reflected in a very concerning way in the ways that others of our fellow citizens have been treated in the aftermath of that referendum, and this motion very properly draws attention to that.

EU nationals in Wales must be assured that they can continue to live here and that they are not to be used as pawns in any negotiation. The First Minister has written directly to the UK Government asking for those assurances. We heard earlier this afternoon of a campaign that Eluned Morgan has developed to demonstrate loud and clear that EU nationals and others are not simply treated with tolerance here in Wales, but that they are welcome to be here and that the decision they have made to make their future part of our future is a decision that is hugely appreciated and recognised. That the future should be shaped, as the motion says, without fear or hindrance is exactly as we would want it to be because, in the lives of those individuals and the communities that they live in, we see the decisions that are made at a national and international level working their way out in the daily lives of the people we live alongside, and their rights and their futures need to be respected.

I call on Leanne Wood to reply to the debate.

Diolch. I thank all Members for their contributions but, in particular, I want to thank the Members of the Plaid Cymru team: Simon Thomas, who focused on the effect of Brexit on the environment and the agricultural sector; Bethan Jenkins, who focused on our steel industry; and Adam Price, who addressed the wider economic questions arising from Brexit. And, yes, it is time for a paradigm shift in our thinking and a new economic approach.

It is important to understand what happened with this vote. Most of the leave voters that I’ve spoken to, during the campaign and since the result, tell me that they did so chiefly because they wanted change, because they felt voiceless and they’re fed up with being taken for granted by an out-of-touch political establishment. I get that. I respect that.

In closing, I’d like to address this question of racism. I’d like to thank the Member for Caerphilly and Mark Isherwood, and indeed the Minister, for alluding to this too. We cannot and we absolutely should not deny that the tone of the debate and the result has brought out prejudices. It has empowered those who were possibly already that way inclined to crawl out from under various stones to abuse minorities. It’s led to an increase in reported racial incidents, and we ignore that at our peril. And, it is not scaremongering to say that when the facts back it up.

Issues of class and inequality were at the heart of this referendum result. The fact that people in those areas that benefit most from the EU’s structural funds voted in the greatest numbers to leave can’t really be taken as anything other than a loud protest against being squeezed—a loud shout out against poverty and against remaining at the bottom of the wealth league, despite having had access to those funds for many years. The increase in the cost of a holiday abroad or mobile phone roaming charges means very little if you haven’t got the money to afford a holiday or a mobile phone. Many people had lost hope that politics could change things, and this referendum gave them the power to land a blow on the political elite, and they took that opportunity. So, people shouldn’t be written off as uneducated, stupid, or even as acting against their own interests for voting to leave for those reasons. It’s not an irrational response to the current political situation, post banking crash, when there are so few opportunities to make your voice heard. Those voices must be heard.

The promise that the UK would save money by withdrawing from the EU played out well in towns and villages where people have been left behind. People in those places were promised more money and more control. That £490 million figure that I quoted earlier on was given to us by the leader of the Conservatives—a leading Brexit campaigner in the campaign.

Now, I hope that, beyond today, we can have that wider debate and that we can agree that, regardless of what side we were on in the referendum, we in Wales need to take more control and more responsibility over our own affairs. Plaid Cymru will continue to be at the forefront of making sure that we secure Wales’s future. All of us here should commit to nothing less.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you very much. We’ll defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.