Well, the leader of—. Well, let me start at the end. I welcome his support for us ensuring that Wales does not lose out on a penny of funding. As I say, he did turn up yesterday at the press conference. I think he thought that I was going to have him thrown out; I did not do that. He tried to ask a question. I think he thought that I would ignore the question; I did not do that. I take the view that it’s better to have people in there and pull their leg, rather than throw them out. But I do appreciate the fact that he came. As I said, he didn’t have far to come—we know that—but nevertheless his support was noted.

First of all, it is right to say that there is a perception in our country that immigration is too high. The reality is different. We know that 79,000 EU passport holders are resident in Wales. Even though we don’t know the figure, I suspect that a substantial number of them are actually Irish and, as a result, are counted as EU passport holders. Seventy one per cent are working here, the other 29 per cent are not. Most of those are students, in reality, and we don’t, surely, want to see fewer students coming into Wales and the UK. They provide our universities with a substantial amount of both brainpower and money, and effectively they subsidise the system for those who are from Wales.

Now, nobody said to me on the doorstep, ‘What we need are fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer students from other countries.’ No-one—no-one—said that at all. And so the freedom of movement to go to a job, I think, is a perfectly rational, sensible position to take. It’s operated in Norway: if you do not have a job in Norway within three months, then you have to leave. Now, those are actually what the rules say, we believe. The UK has interpreted the rules more liberally than other countries, but that is the case in Norway, and that is a system, I believe, that most people in Wales would see as sensible and would support.

He talks of free trade deals. Now, to me, replacing a free trade arrangement with the EU with one with New Zealand is not a fair exchange. The EU has 500 million people, New Zealand has 4.8 million. It’s not a big market. What New Zealand does have is the capacity to wipe out Welsh farming. So, any free trade deal with New Zealand that takes away quotas or tariffs kills Welsh farming, end of. I do not trust Whitehall to even recognise that point, apart from one or two Ministers. Australia is not a big market. Of course, they’d like to have a free trade deal with the UK; the UK is much larger than them, so of course it’s going to benefit them in the longer term. I don’t blame them; that’s exactly what I would do if I was in their situation. Bear in mind the UK has no experience of this; it’s been over 40 years since the UK negotiated anything. New Zealand is far more adept and far more experienced at negotiating free trade arrangements and agreements than the UK is. So, we have to be very careful that we don’t end up negotiating with people and getting the raw end of the deal because of our own inexperience. And so, that is something we must consider in the future.

He talks of the US. Did he not listen to what the US President said? He said America first, America first. America is no longer interested in free trade. It’s only interested in protecting its own interest. That’s where America is in this period in its history. I do not believe for one second that any kind of free trade agreement with the US would lead to anything other than a benefit to the US and a disbenefit to the UK. How else could Donald Trump possibly sell it to his own people otherwise? And so, we must be very careful of what the US would want. Would it want—? His party was dead against TTIP, but now he’s advocating a free trade agreement with the US. He was dead against it at the beginning of last year. What’s changed? Are we to see a situation where, for example, public services like health and education are to be privatised and US companies allowed to run them? I saw Nigel Farage endlessly campaigning against TTIP—‘Don’t have a free trade agreement with the US’, he said. So, what’s changed? All of a sudden, the US is flavour of the month. There is a certain lack of consistency in terms of what UKIP has said.

He asks the question about the shrinkage in the economy through tariffs. He forgets that through our current membership of the EU, we have a free trade agreement with 50 other countries, not just the EU, so we have access to those markets as well—very, very big markets of which China is one. So, actually, we lose that free trade arrangement with China unless it’s renegotiated in record time. That’s why our economy will shrink. Surely, nobody can argue sensibly that the imposition of tariffs is a good thing. What would that mean? It would mean, for example, that our food and drink would face a tariff possibly of up to 50 per cent going to its main market. It would mean, yes, that tariffs would be imposed on goods coming into the UK, but who pays those tariffs? The public. He does. I do. All of us in this Chamber. It’s not businesses that pay tariffs; it’s members of the public. It would see inflation go up. We import half of our food necessarily; we could never be self-sufficient in food because of our climate and our geography. We would see many, many things become more expensive for those who can least afford those things. And it’s from our position—. Well again, you see—. Dear me, trying to talk to UKIP—. Does UKIP not understand that if there is no deal with the EU, WTO rules apply? That’s it. Okay? There’s no question about it; they’re automatic. The UK wants to join the WTO according to UKIP—fine—whereas at the same time saying you’ll ignore the rules of the WTO. It doesn’t work that way. If you’re going to say you’re going to ignore the rules at the beginning, you’re not going to get in in the first place. And so, let’s have some realism about the debate as well.

So, on the basis of what the leader of UKIP has said, I don’t think there is much common ground that we could have agreed on at this moment in time. But, nevertheless, I echo what the leader of Plaid Cymru has said: we’ve put our cards on the table, let’s see the other ideas; let’s see detail on what the other ideas might be. It’s no good the leader of the Welsh Conservatives saying, ‘Our position is what the UK Government’s position is’. Develop your own position. You’ve got plenty of people on your backbenches who have enough brainpower to actually be able to do that. Develop your own position. Let us know. Let’s see you argue the case. Put forward a case rather than saying, ‘It’ll all be all right on the night.’ The same for UKIP: put forward a detailed plan of your own so we can see it and we can debate it. There is no detailed plan. The detailed plan is basically this: ‘It’ll all be fine. We don’t need to do any work. It’ll all be fine. The EU will come running to us.’ The same as the German car manufacturers. We saw what happened when Owen Paterson went out to Germany last week. The German car manufacturers and businesses stared at them and wondered what on earth they were talking about. Realism. We have to have realism and we have to have contributions to the debate.

There comes a time when people have to step out onto the pitch and actually make sure that people understand what they can do. It comes down to others to get off the sidelines. ‘Get off the sidelines’, I hear the crowd shouting, ‘get on the pitch and show us exactly what you want to do.’ You earn the right to criticise when you develop your own position. You haven’t earned that right yet.