The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies and amendment 2 in the name of Simon Thomas. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will fall.

The next item on the agenda is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate. I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion.

Motion NDM6087 Neil Hamilton

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that Brexit gives Wales a great opportunity to boost trade, industry and employment.

2. Welcomes the freedom Brexit provides to create a tailor-made policy for Welsh agriculture and fishing.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to work closely in a positive frame of mind to capitalise on these opportunities and to involve all parties in the Assembly in its negotiations with the UK Government to maximise the potential benefits for Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd. As we approach the end of another hard day at the ‘wordface’, Members may be forgiven for thinking, as we have another debate on Brexit, that the subject may be inexhaustible but we are not. But, I rise to propose our motion that the National Assembly for Wales believes that Brexit gives Wales a great opportunity to boost trade, industry and employment; welcomes the freedom Brexit provides to create a tailor-made policy for Welsh agriculture and fishing; and calls on the Welsh Government to work closely in a positive frame of mind to capitalise on these opportunities and to involve all parties in the Assembly in its negotiations with the UK Government to maximise the potential benefits for Wales.

The debate on Brexit, for many, many months, has perhaps shed more heat than light. Amongst those who opposed Britain leaving the EU, a world has been conjured up— somewhat akin to a Hieronymus Bosch painting—of devils and demons and a world of fear. I hope that we’ve now moved beyond that. I was certainly encouraged by the words of the First Minister yesterday, in response to the leader of the opposition, where it was clear that he’s now beginning to think very positively about the future for Wales, and I applauded and approved what he said about a free trade agreement being the way forward.

I also was very taken by the speech that we heard this afternoon from Adam Price, who I think is a very open-minded and positive person, and I think he came forward with a number of very useful ideas—in stark contradistinction to the leader of his party, sadly, who is still trying to rerun the referendum on the debate on immigration, despite the fact that her own constituency, the Rhondda, voted even more overwhelmingly for Brexit than the rest of Wales.

The future is bright for Wales, in my opinion, as a result of the opportunities that Brexit gives us. It’s not the case that if we remained within the EU, somehow or other everything would be stable and we would have no problems. Of course, change is constant in the business world. Anybody who’s ever run a business, particularly a trading business, knows that the world is full of uncertainties: it’s the way you capitalise upon them that is the difference between success and failure. It is important to us, of course, that we should obtain tariff-free access to the single market, but it’s not something that we should be prepared to pay any price to obtain. There are other important public policy issues that have to be taken into consideration too.

It is true that we export to the EU maybe 5 per cent of Britain’s GDP. Clearly, that’s important, but, we have to recall, the flipside of that argument is that 95 per cent of our economy is not involved in exporting to the EU. So, we should keep these questions in perspective. And even that part of our trade that is exports to the EU, 65 per cent of it would be subject to a tariff of less than 4 per cent if we came to no agreement at all as a result of Brexit with our partners across the channel. So, it is only 35 per cent of our exports that are really in issue in these trade negotiations.

Most important, of course, is the automotive industry. But, there again, we have opportunities rather than challenges, in my view: we export £8.5 billion in value in cars to the EU, but they export to us—i.e. we import from them—£23 billion-worth of cars. So, they’re selling to us three times what we sell to them. Of that £23 billion that we buy from European car manufactures, £20 billion comes from Germany alone. So, Germany is going to play a massive part in the decisions that fall to be made on the future trading relationship between Britain and the European Union. It seems utterly fanciful to me to imagine that German car manufacturers are for a moment going to countenance tariffs on trade between us because Germany would be massively the loser. Even in terms of pounds per head or euros per head, the situation is that Germany is the winner, relative to Britain.

Will the Member give way?

Sure.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that the United Kingdom will not be negotiating with Germany in trade negotiations? It will be negotiating with the entire European Union, and therefore perhaps he’s taking far too much for granted in his attitude to the Germans overall.

Well, it’s true that the European Commission will be the body that does the negotiating, but anybody who knows anything about the EU knows who calls the shots within it. I have been a member of the European Council of Ministers, albeit some time ago, but, if you think that Germany will have little influence in these decisions, I’m afraid you’re not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Again, agriculture is important to us, not least to my region, Mid and West Wales, but, even on food and drink, we have a £17 billion a year deficit with the EU. It’s massively in their interest to maintain the freest possible trade between our two bodies—Britain and what remains of the EU. Being out of the EU gives us the opportunity to make changes to the law that affects our industries, which we can’t do within it because of the very reason that Steffan Lewis alluded to a moment ago, that you’ve got to get the agreement of 27 or 28 other countries in order to pass EU legislation. So, as regards the steel industry, as we know, we will have the opportunity to make significant reductions in energy prices, if we want to take those decisions, which we can’t do at the moment, or we can only do imperfectly at the moment. Energy prices are 6 per cent of the costs of the steel industry overall, so, if we could halve our energy prices, even to what they charge in Germany, that would be a big benefit to our British steel industry, and not just the steel industry in Port Talbot but also Shotton as well.

So, I just don’t understand how we can have a nationalist party opposite that doesn’t want its laws made in Cardiff and is happy not just to have them made in Westminster, but also even further away in Brussels. This seems to me a massive opportunity for Wales, not just for the UK, to devolve lots of issues to Cardiff rather than to Westminster. So, I have no fears for the future of Wales’s ability to compete in the world at large. James Dyson, one of our great entrepreneurs, a massive exporter, points out that we have a £100 billion a year deficit with the EU in our trade and, even if import duties were to be imposed upon us, then, in comparison with currency swings, that is marginal. So, the world of uncertainty in which business lives already has to cope with the kinds of uncertainties that have been added to by Brexit, and they cope very, very well.

Being out of the EU gives us the opportunity to amend agricultural policy, for example, in particular the second limb of our motion today, and to design an agricultural policy that is tailor made for the specific circumstances of Wales. We have a lot more upland farmers in Wales than is true of the rest of the UK, and certainly than is true of the rest of the EU. We will be able to design an agricultural policy that is specific to their needs. It’s up to us. I hope that agricultural policy will be fully devolved to us here in Cardiff. And, as a result of leaving the EU, all the responsibilities of the European Commission will come to this Assembly and to the Welsh Government, because that will enable us—[Interruption.] Yes, and the cash, too. I’ve already said many, many times, responding to Carl Sargeant, that Wales should get every single penny of public money that currently is spent in Wales by the European Union. That involves, I suppose, a negotiation with the UK Government, but we shouldn’t shy away from that and it’s our money, so there is a Brexit dividend on top, because, as we know, £10 billion a year of our money is spent elsewhere in the EU, not back in the UK. So, we want our share of that as well, which, on a per-head basis, would be an extra £500 million a year to spend in Wales for the benefit of the Welsh people.

Being outside the EU gives us the opportunity to make micro changes to agricultural policy as well, on herbicides and pesticides regulations, on health and safety issues, where the costs that are imposed may be wholly disproportionate to the benefits that are achieved. So, for example, let’s take a very mundane and prosaic example of bracken control on the hills: we will be able to relicense Asulam as a means of controlling bracken, which we can’t do now, which was fully accredited under the previous control regime, and we had no problems with that. But when control was vested in the European Union then we had no say and that was banned. So, there are lots of instances of that kind also where we will have the opportunity to reduce the costs of our manufacturers and farmers and other trading bodies so that we will become more competitive in the world. It’s a combination of taking advantage of new markets, which we’ll be able to because we will now have the freedom to negotiate free trade agreements on our own account with other parts of the world—

Will you give way?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you very much. With the greatest of respect, we have heard this speech several times before. At the briefings lunch time in the Assembly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said it is now the consensus of economists that the British economy is going to shrink as a result of Brexit. So, while we are hearing increased informed commentary about the negative effects that come before us, the smug, self-satisfied speech we keep hearing time and again from Neil Hamilton is getting a little thin.

Well, I wonder if Lee Waters is old enough to remember the 364 economists who predicted disaster after the 1981 budget, which proved to be the kick-start to the British economy, which gave us the massive growth—[Interruption.] Which gave us the massive growth that then took place in the British economy in the 1980s. Economics has traditionally been known as ‘the dismal science’ and for a very good reason. But I—[Interruption.] We can all quote our favourite economists, but, at the end of the day, economists’ predictions are all based upon assumptions and computer models. So, the consequence is that we have an opportunity to make the most of ourselves. So, the Welsh Government has to make the best of a situation that it didn’t want. I fully accept that they were on the losing side of the argument—like all Labour AMs, and all Plaid AMs come to that. The British people have made this decision and therefore we have to move forward in a positive frame of mind to make the best of the opportunity that is given to us and I’m glad that the First Minister is moving in this direction. I hope that Plaid Cymru also will move in this direction, following the lead that has been given today by Adam Price.

So, I have no hesitation whatsoever in commending our motion to the Assembly because Wales has its future in its own hands now, not in the hands of people who are not elected by us and whose identities, indeed, remain a mystery to the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. I would have thought a nationalist party would have actually applauded and approved of the opportunity for us as a Welsh people and a British people to make these decisions, rather than the people of other countries and even people who are not elected at all. That, I think, is a massive boon for us and the world is our oyster.

I have selected two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. [Interruption.] I think I’m having a competition here with the Cabinet Secretary for Education. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

‘Recognises the outcome of the referendum on 23 June and calls on the Welsh Government to engage positively with the UK and other devolved governments in securing the best possible outcome for Wales during the forthcoming negotiations.’

Amendment 1 moved.

As the First Minister told the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on Monday, the issue of whether we should be part of the EU has been decided. Brexit now must be championed as an opportunity to boost trade, industry, employment, agriculture and fishing, but this will only happen if we grasp the nettle. I therefore move amendment 1, which recognises the outcome of the referendum on 23 June and calls on the Welsh Government to engage positively with the UK and other devolved Governments in securing the best possible outcome for Wales during the forthcoming negotiations.

The First Minister’s warnings in America of impending constitutional crisis and risk of economic harm were an object lesson in how not to sell Wales to the world. He did also state that Wales remains open for business, but the determined message from now on must be that Wales after Brexit will be a great place to invest and do business. Two months ago, the UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union announced that the UK already had 10 post-Brexit trade deals lined up. Because the UK has outsourced trade negotiation powers to Brussels for 43 years, the UK Government is now beefing up its team of trade negotiators and other expert staff. At this month’s G20 summit, the Prime Minister set out her ambition for the UK to become a global leader in free trade as a bold, confident outward-looking state. The leaders of India, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore said they would welcome talks to remove the barriers to trade between our countries and the Australian trade Minister visited the UK last week for exploratory discussions on the shape of a UK-Australia trade deal. Statements by the First Minister in the external affairs committee and Plenary rejecting engagement in pre-trade-agreement discussions and disparaging UK trade negotiators therefore risk Wales missing out. And evidence that the First Minister only met nine businesses during the four months between the date the referendum was called and polling day added to concern that the Welsh Government did not undertake detailed planning for the eventuality that the people would vote ‘leave’ in Wales.

Although Wales had a trade surplus with the EU last year, this month’s export figures show that the value of Welsh exports to EU countries fell by £586 million, almost 11 per cent, as exports to non-EU countries increased. Exports of UK goods and services to the EU have fallen from 54 per cent to 44 per cent of the total over the last decade. In 2014, the share of UK goods exports going to countries outside the EU was higher than every other EU member state bar Malta. Since 2014, Welsh exports to the EU have fallen from 44 per cent to 39 per cent of total exports. In the year to June 2016, Welsh exports to the EU fell a further 6 per cent, as they increased by over 9 per cent to the Asia-Pacific market.

The UK Government’s announcement that all structural and investment projects, including agri-environment schemes, signed before the autumn statement will be fully funded until 2020 is welcomed, as are guaranteed payments for universities participating in Horizon 2020, even when projects continue beyond EU exit. The Treasury also announced that further details of guaranteed funding arrangements for specific structural and investment fund projects signed after the autumn statement will be provided before the autumn statement. Again, the First Minister’s dismissal of dialogue over this yesterday risks Wales missing out.

As the Farmers’ Union of Wales president said after the FUW met the UK Minister of State for Exiting the EU:

‘the Chancellor’s statement needs to be localised to a Wales context by the Welsh Government.’

As he has also said:

‘we don’t want to copy just any other trading model. It is critical that we set up a trading model that suits the UK and Welsh agriculture, and now is our chance to do just that…our current bovine TB status poses a considerable threat in those trade negotiations and that this will have to be solved urgently’ by the Welsh Government. And, as the National Farmers Union President said:

‘The vote to leave the European Union means that food security must act as the catalyst for a new, bold ambition for Welsh farmers and growers. This is a once in a generation opportunity that NFU Cymru is determined to capitalise on in order to ensure the long-term viability and growth of our industry.’

So let us re-engage with the rest of the world and close the prosperity gap between Wales and other European nations at last.

I call on Steffan Lewis to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Simon Thomas.

Amendment 2—Simon Thomas

Delete all and replace with:

1. Notes that Wales has a trade surplus with the EU and that maintaining full membership of the single market is essential for Welsh businesses.

2. Regrets the insecurity the agriculture industry faces as a result of Brexit.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to enhance support for the higher education sector, particularly in research and development.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure a four countries approach to Brexit negotiations in order to ensure Welsh national interests are upheld during EU withdrawal.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move the amendment in the name of Simon Thomas.

I’m afraid my contribution won’t be quite as full as sunshine and lollipops as the previous speakers’. Perhaps at some point I could explain to Neil Hamilton the difference between Welsh nationalism and British isolationism, but there isn’t enough time to go through that today.

The past 48 hours or so have shone a disturbing light over the position of the Welsh Government, in particular the public pronouncements of the First Minister on three fundamental points: firstly, the process of withdrawal from the EU itself, secondly, the nature of Wales and the UK’s relations with the EU post Brexit, and, thirdly, the constitutional status of Wales.

On the first point, the First Minister has said that he wants Welsh involvement in the process of withdrawal, but has not substantiated on what shape that would take other than saying he is waiting on the UK Government position first. He has not either elaborated on the nature of post-article 50 negotiations. Does he, for example, support a chapter-by-chapter accession-in-reverse model? Does he want negotiations themselves to be held in the UK—maybe some in Wales where there is a particular relevance to Welsh interests? What supervisory mechanisms does the Welsh Government want in place to ensure there is no Westminster power grab when it comes to policy fields being repatriated from the EU to the UK?

On the second point of Welsh and UK relations with the EU post Brexit, specifically on the single market, on Monday the First Minister told me and the external affairs committee that he did not favour membership of the single market. Yesterday in this Chamber, he told the leader of the opposition that he did, before then saying that he preferred a free trade deal. In his evidence to the external affairs committee on Monday, the First Minister took great pleasure in highlighting the UK’s lack of expertise in trade negotiations before ruling out recruiting Welsh trade negotiators to ensure Welsh interests are upheld and made clear to Dr Liam Fox’s department in Whitehall.

This is all further confused by the fact that the First Minister appears to have made free movement of people a red-line issue through suggesting a moratorium of free movement post Brexit—a moratorium that the First Minister prefers to be wholly controlled in Westminster because, again, on Monday he poured cold water on the suggestion of devolved Governments being able to issue work visas for sectors of the economy and public services where there are skills shortages. This could be potentially disastrous for the Welsh NHS and R&D in this country. There is a wider social point, I think, to be made, Llywydd, on the issue of migration, and I would ask all progressives in this Chamber and beyond to be wary of appearing to pander to the kind of politics that scapegoats migrants for the poor political and economic decisions made by people in London.

On the third point of Wales’s constitution, threats made by the First Minister in Chicago on the possible political ramifications, should there be a post-Brexit deal that is unacceptable to Wales, proved hollow by Monday, because he ruled out any referendum on Wales’s future under any circumstances. To be clear, that means that Westminster can do its worst to Wales—there will be no serious consequences as far as this country is concerned.

It is quite clear that the UK Government has little idea of where it is going, let alone how it is going to get there. What an opportunity for Wales to map a trajectory for itself that can make the most of the situation we find ourselves in now and, at the same time, strengthen our national resilience politically and economically. Plaid Cymru cannot accept a situation where Wales is a timid spectator. We must be shouting as loudly and consistently as the other devolved nations are, if we have any hope of defending our national interest. I ask the Government, again, to produce a comprehensive plan and set of proposals for the three stages Wales now faces: our rolling Brexit negotiations, the post-Brexit deal we want to see for Wales and the constitutional outcome for Wales that goes beyond empty words about a federal model and actually articulates exactly what that model would look like. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

In the days and weeks that preceded the Brexit vote and the days and weeks after, we have had dire warnings of an economic meltdown as a result of our decision to leave the EU. But, in recent weeks, economic data have proven the warnings as little more than scaremongering. But, this week, the British Chambers of Commerce have slightly revised their growth figures for the UK downwards, but have stated that the UK will not enter the much predicted recession and, at present, there will be economic fluctuations.

Despite earlier scare stories, I feel business confidence, even in small ways, is becoming prominent in Wales—

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes.

Does she accept that, of course, we’re still a part of the European Union and that we could expect political and economic fluctuations and turmoil to occur once article 50 is triggered, and during the negotiations and the years of uncertainty that will follow article 50, and that to take for granted that things are going to go swimmingly is perhaps a bit naïve?

I hope that article 50 is triggered quite soon, so that everyone can just—[Interruption.] There will be a little bit of speculation in it. We are all speculating at the moment, and there are fluctuations that are going to happen. [Interruption.] Of course it matters to me, I live in Wales. What do you think matters to me? [Laughter.] Good grief. Where do you think I come from? [Interruption.]

Carry on, Caroline Jones.

Thank you very much. Last week, I was invited to the opening of two new businesses in my region. So, if people on the smaller scale are willing to invest their hard-earned money, then I can see other businesses capitalising as well, large businesses.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

What would be your message to the successful small business in my constituency that has decided to put all investment on hold until such a time as the question of Brexit has been resolved? Even if it all does come up roses at the end, we will have lost two, three, four or five years of potential investment in that business.

Well, all I can say, Rhun, is that, from personal experience, the businesses in my region—a lot of businesses—are opening new businesses, empty premises are becoming filled, and that I haven’t heard of any person saying to me that—. As a former businesswoman myself, I haven’t had anyone come to me or speak to me saying that they’re not going to take any opportunity because of Brexit. Nobody has come to me, so I can go on the experience I have. Thank you.

Last week I was invited to two businesses—people that are willing to invest in a small way and create employment—in my region. Brexit offers the UK and Wales a great opportunity, and we can see that. Airbus have said that they have no intention of pulling out. HSBC and Barclays bank have said that they’re not going anywhere and they will stay in Britain because London is the centre of the financial world. So, obviously, that’s going to trickle down to Wales. [Interruption.] It is. Of course it will. If London is the hub, then everywhere else is going to—[Interruption.] So, regardless of Brexit, we still have Austin Martin coming—

Member of the Senedd:

Aston Martin.

Yes, we have Aston Martin coming to St Athan, creating 750 jobs. So that’s no small feat, is it? Therefore, I do say that Brexit offers the UK and Wales a great opportunity to boost trade, grow our industry, and increase employment. Once we are released, as well, I think it will increase even further, when we trigger article 50. We firmly believe that we need free trade with the EU, not membership of the single market with all its restrictions. The UK Government need to get on with negotiating our exit from the EU as soon as possible so that we can capitalise on the opportunities that Brexit brings. The Welsh Government must work collaboratively with the UK Government to ensure that Wales’s interests are at the forefront of any Brexit negotiations. We shouldn’t be getting bogged down in discussing which model should be adopted. We simply wish to trade with the EU. We need our image to be one of buoyancy regarding our exit. We need to sell our country and all that it’s worth for all that we have. We need to capitalise on our country and the beauty that it offers and all the trade that we can get from the rest of the world.

We also say that Wales’s exports to the EU only account for 41 per cent of our world exports, and that has been declining over the past four years. So, we must work together—all parties—to provide the best possible solution and outcome for Wales. Our trade deals need to be ambitious, looking at a global market. We don’t need to overburden ourselves with red tape just to maintain access to the single market.

Will you take an intervention?

Not again. We have to embrace free trade with the whole world, rather than solely focusing on an increasingly insular trading bloc. It’s time for the UK Government to deliver on their promise that Brexit means Brexit, and we need Brexit as soon as possible.

I don’t want to repeat things that have already been said in the previous debate on Brexit that we heard earlier this evening, but I’m afraid that the contributions we’ve heard on this debate are symptomatic of the oversimplistic presentation of the situation that we are in and the risks that we face.

I’m amazed, like many others, that so many farmers chose to vote to leave, with little regard to the loss of income that potentially could come to them. I heard recently of one farmer who voted to leave who receives £69,000 from the basic payment scheme, which is obviously a very good sum of money, compared with the average wage. How much do they make in profit from their farming business? A mere £5,000, which obviously calls into question the viability of that business if there’s a risk of the possibility of simply there being no farming payments in the future. We cannot rely on the Treasury to hand the money over. So, I think we have to listen to the reasons why such people may have voted ‘leave’. They talk about the need to get rid of regulation, but speaking on behalf of my urban constituency, regulation of the food industry and that guarantee that the common agricultural policy has given to consumers of the passage of food from the farm to the fork is an essential regulation that we absolutely have to maintain; otherwise, we will continue to suffer from appalling potential risks to public health. So, I really just want to caution us into thinking that there are simplistic solutions to this really complex problem that we have now been handed, and to ensure that we are mindful, not just of the incredibly hard work involved in farming—it is probably the physically most demanding job that anybody does in Wales—but also of the role that farmers play in ensuring that we safeguard our environment and meet our climate change obligations. So, there is an incredibly important role to play by farming communities and by the rural community, but also to safeguard the food we eat and to ensure we have a healthy future. But, I think to present it as if this was some easy possibility, and something to be sorted out simply because new business is being created in a particular area, is really not presenting the complexity of the problem that exists here. We certainly need to engage fully in looking at the economic challenges that the Minister for finance is going to be undertaking, and to ensure that every voice is heard, and not just those who shout loudest.

Well, it amazes me—the negativity that so often comes from the other side of this house. We’ve heard many things lauded in this Assembly with regard to the European Union. One of the AMs this morning alluded to the protection for workers within the European Union, and the legislation of the European Union that gave protection to those. You did in fact allude to that. Well, I would like to ask what protection that has given to migrant workers in this country. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a proliferation of such things as the car wash facilities in Wales, so that they are now almost a ubiquitous part of almost every town and village. Well, I can tell you that the legislation of Europe hasn’t protected those people in any way. Most of those people work 10 hours a day, seven days a week, for as little as £3 an hour. They don’t have contracts—not even that appalling zero-hours contract. Not only that, but they have no protective clothing in their work. So, all of this, which you say is coming out of the European Union to protect workers, certainly doesn’t protect that section of the working population.

To add to that, you keep saying as well about the protection of the environment. Actually, each and every one of these car washes actually washes down the effluent that they are using to wash the cars into our water streams. What sort of protection do we have from that? You are very selective about how you deal with protection for people—

Would you give way?

Yes.

It is slightly alarming listening to the anecdote that we are having in place of evidence when we face such severe economic challenges. Paul Johnson, who is the highly respected head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that our economy will be significantly smaller as a result of Brexit. So, let’s talk about facts and serious opinion, rather than anecdote.

Anecdote? So, the anecdote is that thousands of people can work in this country under appalling working conditions, and you call it an anecdote.

I’ll intervene again. Caroline Jones gave a speech based on some businesses she had met, and this is somehow a substantive response to all of the economists saying our economy is going to decline. And you’re telling us about effluent coming from car washes. So, that’s anecdote.

That doesn’t matter? That has no influence on how we keep this country clean? Well, it does matter. I want to take up another point, anyway, with the other AM who talked about a farmer getting £68,000 under the CAP payments. Well, there are farmers in England who get £1 million a year under the CAP payments for not growing products, and many of our farmers in Wales are—in fact, most of the farmers in Wales are actually in the mountain farming industry, where they get as little as £10,000 or £12,000. Hardly a living wage. [Interruption].

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. So, are you actually saying that, post Brexit negotiations, our farmers in Wales will be better off?

I do. I honestly believe that the benefits they’ll get from coming out of the European Union, instead of subsidising inefficient French, German, Italian and Greek farmers, can be used to subsidise our farmers to a far greater degree. But I do agree with this: that we all have to work, cross-party, in this Assembly to make sure that the UK Government does deliver the bonus that we have from Europe, and we all have to work for that. Thank you.

I call the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. I'll try to add something different to a debate that's been running since yesterday afternoon and run again in an earlier debate in the Assembly. I listened carefully to what Neil Hamilton had to say. The first point that has to be emphasised is that nobody is arguing that tariffs should be imposed, but he places faith in German car manufacturers. I have to say to him that the negotiations are not with BMW; the negotiations are with the EU Commission, with 27 member states and the European Parliament. We have to convince them all to have a free trade agreement and not just BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Mercedes-Benz. And they will continue to sell to the UK market because the tariff won’t affect them. They are a prestige marque; people will pay an extra £3,000 or £4,000 for a BMW because they can afford to do so. It doesn't affect them as much as it does Ford.

Fifty per cent of the exports that the UK sends out every year go to the European Union—50 per cent. It is by far our biggest trading partner. Anything that interferes with our access to that market per se is bad for the UK. Now, when I was in the US last week, all they wanted to talk about was what was going to happen to the UK. They do not see the UK as big enough as a place to invest in of itself. The EU is 440 million people. India and China, Russia are much, much bigger than the UK. We've got to get away from this idea that, somehow, the world owes the UK a living and the UK is somehow very, very important. To be very, very important, you need to have lots of people or lots of oil, then you get listened to. It's important to have friends in the rest of Europe and around the world to make sure that you can trade with them. The European Union gave us that ability to do that, but the people of Wales have spoken.

And in terms of other things he mentioned, food and drink—we will never have food security. It is impossible for the UK not to import food. We do not have the climate to actually feed ourselves. The war would have taught people that, surely. And so, if tariffs are imposed on food, people will still have to buy the food, but they will be paying the tariffs on top of that. If you look at the fruit and veg that comes into the UK, much of it comes from the European Union. If there are tariffs attracted to that, there's no UK producer who can replace that; you can't replace the import of tomatoes all year round, because the UK can't do that. So, at the end of the day, it's not possible to say that this is all to do with food security, because food security is mythical as far as the UK is concerned and it always will be. It's where we are in the world and it's to do with our latitude and our climate.

Now, there was one issue that troubled me particularly, but I suspect this is something that we will see over the next few months from some of the harder Brexiteers, and that is how we deal with all these pesky regulations: herbicides, pesticides, employment rights—all these things that have got in the way of the UK being competitive. You’ve talked of the environment. The UK had an appalling record on the environment in the 1980s. We were major polluters; we were causing acid rain around Europe. Some of our rivers were inflammable if you threw matches into them, and the UK had to be dragged into a better environmental policy by the rest of Europe. Under no circumstances would we permit as a Government our environmental standards to slip. Our people deserve better than that.

He talks about the £10 billion that's going to come. No-one believes that anymore. No-one uses that figure anymore, this mythical £10 billion. I look forward to the £620 million that we would be entitled to coming straight to Wales, no questions asked. I don't believe that that will happen.

He mentioned the 1981 budget—the most disastrous budget ever produced by any Government ever in Europe since the end of the second world war, which created 22 per cent inflation, 3.2 million people unemployed. One of the reasons for people feeling annoyed enough to vote to leave the European Union is because of that budget, because people saw manufacturing being decimated in the UK, saw a Conservative Government that didn’t care about manufacturing—and we see the echoes of that in some economists who say that service industries are more important than anything else. I have to say that London is indeed a financial centre as far as world finances are concerned, but if financial services in London cannot operate in the European Union, it won’t be for very much longer. The Swiss will tell you that they don’t have access to financial services in the rest of the European Union, and that means, of course, that they’re not able to operate there.

Now, we have to recognise these problems in order to get to a better position. The world is not as simple as some speakers might like to make out. Caroline Jones said—perhaps I’m doing her a disservice—‘Let’s get out now-ish’. What happens in Northern Ireland? What happens with the Republic? The great unanswered question is what happens to that border. People on the doorstep said to me, ‘We want control over our borders’. That’s never going to happen, because the UK doesn’t control the border with the Republic of Ireland. You start putting border posts back there, or security, and you break the Good Friday agreement. There is only one consequence of that, and it is serious.

These things have to be handled carefully. Not even the DUP wants to see a hard border back in Ireland. If you do these things without thinking carefully about the consequences and there are very, very serious consequences for the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic and indeed the rest of the UK. So, these things have to be considered very, very carefully.

In terms of what Mark Isherwood said, much of what he said is in keeping with his seating position in the Chamber, I might suggest, in terms of what he was saying. But again, he has to understand—I mean, some of the things he said were, frankly, naive. What the Treasury have said—let’s make no bones about it—is that, if a project is signed off before the autumn statement, it will get funding. That’s true. After that, they give no guarantees at all. Nothing. It’s all case by case and ‘We’ll decide whether you get funding or not’. It means that money that would have come to Wales will now face a barrier in London rather than the money flowing directly to us. That’s what they’ve said. [Interruption.] Of course.

Given that they’ve said that they were making a statement on this before the autumn statement, is it not therefore vital that Wales is engaged in close dialogue with them regarding that?

I’ll send the message now in terms of the dialogue: we want to see our funding guaranteed post the autumn statement as per the promise that was given by those who wanted out of the European Union. I warned at the time that we would end up in a situation where the Government in London would act as a brake on funding that comes to Wales automatically. Not even UKIP, in fairness, are in that position. They want to see the money come automatically. The Conservative Party finds itself in a different position even to UKIP on this, by not standing up for Wales and demanding that the money that we would have had continues to flow to Wales.

In terms of some of the other comments that were made, Steffan Lewis raised some interesting points. There are many questions to which there are no answers at the moment. The Scottish Government doesn’t have the answers. The Scottish Government has an answer in terms of wanting independence, possibly, but it doesn’t have answers in terms of a detailed plan. [Interruption.] Of course.

I thank the First Minister for giving way. The Scottish Government position is very clear. Scotland voted to remain in the European Union and the Scottish Government position is that Scotland remains in the European Union. If it is dragged out of the European Union against its will, then of course that is a different matter altogether. So, I don’t think you can make a parallel between the situation in this country, where we have a pro-EU Government in a country that voted to leave the European Union, and a Government in Scotland that wanted to remain in the EU with a country that voted that way as well. The situation is different here, so I think it merits a unique, proactive response from the Government of this country.

And that’s what makes it more complicated, which is why, of course, we had, for example, the British-Irish Council meeting here in July, something I demanded, in Glasgow, because we know there are other administrations that face the same dilemmas. Yes, we are in a different position to Scotland, but I don’t think Scotland fully understands where it wants to go next. Scotland, it’s no secret, wants to have some kind of special status within the EU. There’s no indication of that being offered in any way, shape or form. We don’t know, and there are so many difficult questions that have yet to be answered as a result.

We talk about the single market. It doesn’t matter if you talk about membership or access; what’s important is that you are able to sell, without tariffs, your goods and services in the single market, whatever you call it. What’s the difference? Membership, I suppose, means membership of the EU, possibly EEA membership, where you have a kind of country membership of the European Union. There are other alternatives that are difficult, hugely difficult, such as free trade agreements, which are possible in principle but hugely difficult in practice. But the fundamental principle is this: we must have access, tariff-free, for goods and services to the European market, and then work on the model that we would want.

We talk about the free movement of people. We know it was an issue out there. He and I would no doubt share the same view on this. But we can’t pretend that the people out there—that many of them, not all, but many of them—didn’t vote because of the issue of free movement of people. So, that is an issue that has to be handled very, very carefully as far as Wales is concerned.

He talks about a referendum. My preferred view is that there should be a ratification process that is respected, where all four Parliaments ratify any deal that’s on the table. That doesn’t mean we don’t get involved during the negotiation; we’re very much part of the negotiation—that much is hugely important. The last thing we want is to be presented with a fait accompli that we had no role in. But another referendum suggests either a rerun of membership—and there are dangers there, I’d suggest—or a referendum on independence. I understand that’s his party’s policy; that’s what he’s arguing for. If he wants to be explicit enough and argue for independence within the EU, then that’s no secret. I’m not putting words in his party’s mouth. That’s not where we are as a Government. We’re not in the position of advocating independence. We’ll leave that to the party opposite.

In terms of some of the things that Caroline Jones said, I’d urge Members not to use anecdote. Yes, of course there are some businesses that are going to grow. Some businesses are not affected in any way, shape or form by Brexit. There are some, but others are hugely affected and the US investors, at this present moment in time, are holding back to see what the UK does. They want to see what the final outcome of any deal actually is. They’ve told me—they’ve told me many, many times that that is the case. They want certainly and they want certainty soon.

Finally, I’m coming to an end. David Rowlands’s contribution—‘It’s appalling that there are foreigners coming to this country and washing our cars’ is effectively what he said. And then he said they’re being exploited. That’s the UK’s fault, not the EU. That’s the UK’s fault. [Interruption.] It’s the UK Government’s responsibility—[Interruption.] I will let you in in a second. It’s the UK Government’s responsibility to stop people being exploited in work—nothing to do with the EU, it’s a UK Government failure.

I did not say that migrants shouldn’t be coming here to wash our cars. What I said was we are giving migrant workers no protection as to how they’re being exploited. The reason for that is that there is a huge over-supply of cheap labour in the market, and if anybody knows anything about economics, they know that an over-supply of a product means that the price of the product goes down. That’s what I’m pointing out. And I’m pointing out that this Government here gives no protection to those people working in those type of industries. I picked up on the car-wash industry as we all know there’s a huge sub-industry in this country, in Wales, where people are being exploited simply because there’s an over-supply of labour in the market. Thank you.

I’ve listened to David Rowlands’s contributions over the weeks and he shares a particular view of the world with me: he doesn’t want to see people being exploited. But there are plenty in his party who don’t care, I can promise him. They’re more than happy to see people exploited over their own people, for their world is about low regulation, low wages and who cares. That’s what many in his party there—that’s what their view is. But, again, it comes back to the point that this has nothing to do with the EU—it’s the failure of the UK Government. Why do we have the minimum wage? Why isn’t is being enforced by the UK authorities? That’s the question—the fair question—that he asked. So, it’s hugely important. I have no problem with people coming here—I know them. A lot of them own their own businesses, for a start—they’re not exploiting themselves—but, at the end of the day, he puts a failure at the door of the EU that is firmly at the door of the UK in failing to actually make sure that people are not being exploited. He raises a fair point in that regard. But, nevertheless, I don’t agree with the way that he has raised it.

He talks about farming, Italian farming is amongst the most efficient in the world, actually. German faming is the same. British farming has subsidies, and I don’t argue against that because I know how important subsidies are to our farming industry. But it’s simply a myth to suggest that British farming is super-efficient compared to other countries in Europe. It just isn’t true. I’ve seen them in that regard. So, we have to be very, very careful about suggesting that somehow the common agricultural policy is designed to operate against Welsh and British farmers.

Finally—I’m coming to an end on this point—the second point I welcome. Yes, it is hugely important that we should be able to tailor agricultural and fisheries policies as far as Wales is concerned. It is in complete contrast to what Mark Reckless said yesterday when he said that what we wanted was a policy that operated across the UK without apparently any flexibility as far as Wales is concerned. So, I welcome the conversion over the past 24 hours.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Well, I spoke too soon earlier on—we’ve heard the same chorus of Jeremiahs as we’ve heard over the years; the First Minister’s even refighting the 1981 budget. The Labour Party is stuck in a mindset of the past. The reason we had to have the 1981 budget was because of the 1979 winter of discontent when Labour last ruined the country in a big way. But we’re not here to refight the battles of the 1980s—we’re here to win the battles of the 2010s. And with the kind of mindset that we’ve heard on the other benches today, we’re never going to win that battle because, as Mark Isherwood rightly said in following me in the debate at the start, if you’re going to sell something, if you’re going to sell a property, you’ve got to believe in it and you’ve got to go out there and be as positive as possible. That’s never going to happen with the kind of mindset that we hear, sadly, from the First Minister.

As far as German car manufacturers are concerned and whether they have any fear of a trade deal not being negotiated with Britain, they say this is the highest priority for the German Government in their view, and the idea that the people who run Mercedes, Audi or BMW have no influence on the German Government and that the German Government has no influence upon the European Commission is absolute moonshine and a world away from the world of reality.

We’ve heard many contributions today, some on our side who have been optimistic and positive, and others who are still stuck in this mindset of negativity. Jenny Rathbone said that we’re offering simplistic solutions. Nobody is offering a simplistic solution. Anybody who’s ever run a business knows the world isn’t simple; it changes from day to day. All I’m saying is that the challenges and the risks of being out of the European Union are far less than the challenges and risks of staying in it, because the EU is a failing project and the eurozone is a complete catastrophe. Europe is now half the size it was relatively in terms of trade compared to the rest of the world in 1980—30 per cent of world trade was accounted for then by the EU, and only 15 per cent now. The future of Wales is to be decided outside the EU in international trade terms, and this freedom, which is given to us as a result of the referendum, now puts into our own hands the tools and levers that we need to kick-start the Welsh economy of the future. How can a nationalist party not want to have the power in its own hands here in Wales or in the UK, not in Brussels—

Will you take an intervention?

[Continues.]—executed by people who we can elect and unelect and throw out if we don’t like the decisions they take. That is something that we can’t do in the EU.

Will you take an intervention?

I’ve come to the end of my speech, Madam Presiding Officer, and so I commend this motion to the house today in the spirit of optimism in which it is written.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? I will defer all voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

It was agreed that voting time should take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.