The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth and amendment 3 in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be de-selected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be de-selected.

The next debate we go to is UKIP’s debate on immigration policy, and I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion.

Motion NDM6335 Neil Hamilton, David J. Rowlands

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the Bank of England working paper, The Impact of Immigration on Occupational Wages, and its conclusion that a 10 per cent increase in the proportion of migrants working in semi and unskilled jobs leads, on average, to a 2 per cent cut in wages in those jobs in a particular region.

2. Believes that:

a) a controlled and fair immigration system, placing emphasis on skilled migration, would have significant benefits for the UK economy;

b) public institutions, such as the National Health Service currently depend upon skilled migration from both outside and inside the European Union;

c) uncontrolled, and largely unskilled, immigration from the European Union member states at the current levels is unsustainable;

d) current UK immigration policy gives migrants discrimination in favour of EU nationals to the disadvantage of those from other parts of the world.

3. Calls on the UK Government to introduce a firm but fair system of immigration control which:

a) does not discriminate against non-EU citizens;

b) does not replicate in substance, or in fact, the existing EU or EEA regime for free movement of workers; and

c) seeks to balance immigration and emigration over a five year period.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The world population at the moment is about 7.5 billion people, and 7 billion of them are subject to United Kingdom immigration control. They have no right to enter the United Kingdom to live, work or to study, unless they can obtain a visa, and in many cases—most cases, in fact—they need a visa just to visit. Yet, if you’re a citizen of the European Union, you can come here as a legal right to look for work, take work up, to live, to study—do whatever you like. That’s an inherent part of membership of the single market.

The Presiding Officer took the Chair.

And what I don’t understand is why the parties who take a different view from us on immigration—those who are going to oppose this motion today—want to discriminate against the rest of the world, because that’s what our immigration policy does. If it’s a benefit to Wales and the United Kingdom to have an open door to immigration in the EU, why isn’t it similarly to our advantage to have an open door with the rest of the world? This is not something that is ever answered by those who are starry-eyed about the effects of membership of the EU upon—[Interruption.] We’re talking about free movement of people here, which is a different matter altogether from the single market. If it’s beneficial for us to take any number of individuals who are simply citizens of the EU to become part of our economy, or just our geographical land mass in the EU, and that’s a good thing for Britain, why isn’t it a good thing if we do the same for the rest of the world? What is it that distinguishes Europeans from Africans or Asians or Americans? Let’s have the answer to that question in the course of this debate because what we want in UKIP is a non-discriminatory immigration policy, which—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed we do. We want to have the same points-based approach that Australia applies towards all countries, and that will accommodate our need for specific skills whilst excluding too great an inflow of people who have no skills, or few skills, the effect of which, as our motion says—I’ll give way to Steffan in a second if he wants to intervene—which actually imposes wage compression upon those at the bottom of the income scale. I give way.

I’m grateful to the Member for giving way. He just said that the UKIP policy was a points-based system. A couple of weeks ago, it was a ‘one-in, one-out’ immigration system. I wonder if he could clarify what the policy might be next week.

Well, our policy is the one that we stood on in the general election, in our manifesto, which is—

The one in Westminster.

No. It is a non-discriminatory immigration policy that is based on skills. The overall general target, over a period of five years, is to reduce net migration to zero.

[Inaudible.]—one in, one out.

Yes, net migration is what we’re talking about. At the moment, we’re adding 0.5 million people to the UK population every single year by a combination of immigration and natural population increase. That is fundamentally unsustainable in the longer term. The population of the UK in 2001 was 59 million. It was 65 million in 2015. It will be 73 million in 2023. Of course, we have no idea, actually, how many people are in the United Kingdom, and certainly we have no idea how many people are overstaying their visas and therefore are illegal immigrants, because exit checks were scrapped by the Blair Government in 1998 and therefore it’s impossible to tell. So, the immigration problem is actually much worse than the headline statistics appear to say.

The principal victims of this, of course, have been people on low incomes. There can hardly be any dispute about that. It’s a simple problem of supply and demand—basic economics. There are plenty of academic studies, apart from the Bank of England one cited in this motion, that demonstrate that point.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way.

I understand the point he’s trying to make, but could he explain, from his perspective, why it is that Germany has had higher immigration but has succeeded in having higher wages?

Well, Germany has a different problem. They will have a declining population over the next few years because their replacement rates are even lower than ours. There is a population bulge, which has long since been exceeded in Germany, and the German population will actually fall over the next 30 years. The opposite situation applies in the United Kingdom. We are adding, as I said at the start of my speech, 0.5 million people to our population every single year. Of course, if migration is, to all intents and purposes, in broad balance, this does not have a depressing effect upon wages generally. But the problem with the amendment that Plaid Cymru put down is that the academic study, which is referred to there, doesn’t actually look at the different segments of employment and the effect that immigration has upon different income levels within the global totals. So, the average figure doesn’t tell the whole story and, actually, is an obfuscation. It actually obscures the problem that we need to do something about. Because for many, many people now the minimum wage is the maximum wage, and that is not an acceptable situation, in my view. Eighty per cent of those who’ve come here from the EU are designated as low skilled or people who don’t have any skills at all.

Dawn Bowden rose—

I will give way, yes.

Do you not accept, however, that that is more to do with exploitative employers than it is to do with people coming in here? Because unskilled workers in this country are being exploited by employers that could pay higher wages and they choose not to.

Well, it’s a problem of supply and demand. If you increase supply relative to the demand, you will depress the price. It’s the inevitable consequence, I’m afraid. Of course, there are exploitative employers, and we’ve referred to this many times. David Rowlands, in this Chamber, has raised many times the problem of car washes, for example, and people who are employed at a fraction of the minimum wage through gangmasters and agencies, which are very, very difficult to police, and we know there hasn’t been a single prosecution in Wales for breach of the minimum wage legislation that’s now been in force for many years. So, there is undoubtedly wage compression going on, in addition to the illegal employment of individuals at poverty wages. The only way in which we will begin to solve this problem is if we do introduce some system of immigration control that is meaningful and which is related to employment opportunities that exist. At the minute, the United Kingdom is in a relative economic upswing, so lots of these difficulties are disguised. If we, as we inevitably will do in due course, go into a downswing again, then the problem is going to be manifested not just in terms of wage compression, but actually increasing unemployment. Yet again, it’s the people at the bottom of the heap in society who are the ones who’ll be paying the price.

Admittedly, in Wales immigration has not created these kinds of problems to anything like the same extent that they have in parts of England, because 90 per cent of those who’ve come here from the EU actually end up in the south and south-east of England. But the United Kingdom is a relatively small—geographically—country, and has a highly homogeneous labour market, and the ripple effects are felt further out from the epicentre. Therefore, it does have a depressing effect upon wages in Wales, which is of great seriousness because Wales is the poorest part of the United Kingdom, and in fact parts of Wales are some of the poorest parts of the continent of Europe. It’s a scandal, actually, that average incomes in Wales relative to the rest of the country have gone down in recent years, and our GVA is about 75 per cent of the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, anything that exacerbates these problems for those on low incomes is much to be deprecated. I gave way, certainly.

I’m genuinely interested in his reply. The 30 per cent income per capita gap between Wales and the rest of the UK—how much of that does he think is caused by immigration?

Well, I can’t answer that question. I don’t know the statistics. But the point that I’m making is that, whatever that figure is—[Interruption.] It may be tiny, and perhaps this is not the day to quote Tesco, considering the announcement of the closure of their call centre in Cardiff, but, in the sense that every little helps, anything that we can do to reduce this downward pressure on wages is something that we should do.

I cannot understand what possible argument there can be for an open door to this country for people doing low-skilled jobs when we still have unemployment to mop up and where wage levels at the bottom end of the income scale are continually being depressed. Of course, that has implications for the Exchequer as well, because in-work benefits therefore compensate for the lower wages that are brought about as a result of this excess supply of labour. It’s the speed of the influx that is the problem. If this happened over a long period of time, then, of course, it balances out, but, when we have the kind of migratory inflows that we’ve experienced in the last 10 years in particular, then it’s a serious problem.

Before 2004, immigration and emigration within the EU and the United Kingdom were broadly in balance. It wasn’t an issue. It was only when the former Soviet Union satellite countries joined the EU that we began to see these significant flows across borders, because, of course, they start from a very, very low base in terms of average income in their economies. So, inevitably, the western countries, and particularly Britain, being outside the eurozone, are a natural magnet, and who can blame them? Of course they want to better their condition of life, and overall these are very good people and with a great work ethic. It’s not the problem of the migrants themselves, but the scale of the inflows, which is what has excited our motion today.

So, I do implore Members not to engage in any kinds of Mickey-Mouse exchanges. I know we haven’t had them so far in the exchanges that were interventions in my speech, but all talk about this being racism and prejudice and it’s the far right and so on simply undermines what is a serious argument for ordinary people, and particularly those who are the most vulnerable in society. So, it’s to call attention to this and the advantages that we will get as a result of leaving the European Union and the single market—because it will enable us to control our own borders in a meaningful way, as we want, to protect our own people—that this motion is brought before the house today.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that Britain and Wales has an open economy and a welcoming society, with immigration playing a significant part in sustaining and developing a modern economy in the 21st century.

2. Recognises the UK Government’s commitment to ensure that our public services, businesses and world-class universities can continue to recruit the brightest and best from around the world.

3. Welcomes the UK Government’s intention to develop accountability and control within the country’s immigration system.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I formally move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies, and I thank UKIP for bringing the debate today. I will try not to detain the Chamber too long today, as they are already reporting it’s the hottest day possible outside. After spending yesterday talking again about Brexit, on the First Minister’s statement, where there wasn’t much that, as an institution, we can deal with on that, I do have to say, whilst it’s perfectly legitimate to debate immigration, and it’s a point that many people do raise when we’re on the doorsteps and talking around Wales, as an institution, there’s not a lot we can actually do about it, to be honest with you, because obviously it’s a reserved matter.

But, from the Welsh Conservative point of view, and my view in particular, I do believe that it is something we should welcome, the ability for people to move around, to be able to come and go as they please, and, in particular, immigration, in my view, has enriched us as a country—as Wales, but as an United Kingdom as well. Without a shadow of a doubt, economically, we are far wealthier as a country by the ability for people to bring their skills, bring their talents, into our country, whether that be in the medical profession, whether that be in manufacturing, or, an area I understand greatly, the agricultural sector, where much economic activity basically depends on the ability for people to come into our country on short-term work permits, visas, call them what you will, or, actually, under the rights secured over time, and actually help economic activity in communities the length and breadth of Wales. Frankly, that economic activity would just cease to exist unless that ability to move around was safeguarded and some sort of facility enabled.

If you look at the higher education sector in particular, it is vital that the gains that we have made over the last 20 to 30 years in the field of research, to be at the forefront of many areas of research, are protected as we go into the Brexit negotiations in particular. That ability to learn and that ability to come into the country and practice in our seats of learning is a vital component of a dynamic twenty-first century economy, which, again, I do believe that we need to be acutely aware of.

But it is a fact that, for many people, immigration is a concern that they seem to have. I think very often it’s a perceived concern rather than a real concern—very often coming across in some extreme programmes that are put on telly that seem to create an image, an impression, of a situation that is far removed from any community that I understand here in Wales or I actually see here in Wales. I do think, as politicians, it is for us, along with others, to promote the benefits that we see, both to the economy and to ourselves as a society, about the ability to be able to move around and ultimately ingrain ourselves and incorporate ourselves in each other’s culture and way of life.

So, that’s why we have put the amendment down today that actually calls for the Assembly to reflect on the welcoming nature Wales has, on the open economy that we have had and I hope we’ll very much continue to have as we go forward, once the Brexit negotiations are concluded, but reflecting on what was an important plank of the Brexit discussions around taking back control and bringing to this country the ability for the democratic institutions of this country to actually set the parameters of what we want as a country.

It might be that you suddenly get a Government that would say, ‘We will take everyone and have an open borders policy’, but that would be for people to vote for that Government. On the other hand, you flip the coin, you could get a Government that would take a very different view and say, ‘No, we pull the drawbridge up and no-one comes in’, but that’s democracy at the end of the day. That, surely, is what we put politicians in places to do, to achieve the will of what people are thinking in that country, and that’s why we have elections.

So, that’s why I very often stand proudly, trying to promote the virtues, as I see it, of a very diverse society, a culturally mixed society, and an economy, as I said, that does thrive on that ability for people to go from Britain to other parts of the world, and from other parts of the world to come into Britain, and, in particular, Wales. When we look at many of our key public services in particular, they would just cease to function unless we were able to obviously attract and secure the professionalism and dynamics that they can bring in to assist the growth of the NHS and the growth of many of our other public services. So, with those points, that is why I hope that the house this afternoon will find favour with the Conservative amendment that is before us on the order paper and vote for that amendment, because it does call on the Assembly to reflect on what we have as a country, being a welcoming, dynamic and diverse country, whilst recognising the genuine concerns that people have over the recent decade or so, where some people perceive that there has been a dramatic change in the culture and the society that they live in, and, therefore, does call on the Government to bring forward the policies to address those concerns.

I call on Steffan Lewis to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that analysis conducted by the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance concluded that there is very little evidence to suggest that neither immigration as a whole nor EU immigration has had significantly large negative effects on employment, wages and wage inequality for the UK-born population.

2. Believes that the rights and privileges afforded to UK and EU citizens currently living and working in other EU member states should be protected.

3. Believes that a creation of a Welsh Migration Advisory Service that could issue Welsh specific visas is necessary to plug skills gaps in the Welsh economy.

4. Calls upon the UK Government to guarantee the rights of all EU citizens currently living and working in the UK following Brexit.

5. Calls upon the Welsh Government to publish a consultation on how a Welsh work permit system could benefit the Welsh economy.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendment in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. From the outset, I’d like to reaffirm Plaid Cymru’s view, and a view, I think, that is shared across most of the Chamber, that those who come to this country and make this nation their home are welcome, that we value the skills they bring, the contribution they make to our economy, and the enrichment they add to our society. We also reaffirm our call for a speedy resolution to the status of EU nationals currently residing in the UK, and hope that an agreement is made soon in the Brexit negotiations that is humane and fair.

It is regrettable that in recent years the language surrounding the issue of immigration has been divisive and demeaning. Indeed, it’s always struck me as rather peculiar how some can regard a foreign national moving to the UK as an immigrant, but a British national moving overseas is romantically labelled an ‘expat’. The truth is, of course, that we are all, somewhere along the line, migrants. That has been the common characteristic of our species since the dawn of time. In any case, I want to briefly touch upon the economic and policy implications of migrations. In terms of EU nationals in Wales, there are fewer than 80,000, around 80 per cent of whom are in employment, and a greater proportion of the remaining 20 per cent are probably students. Of that 80,000 or so EU nationals, a significant number are Irish nationals, who, it is proposed by even the most enthusiastic advocates of closed borders, would continue to have free-movement rights with the UK post Brexit. Indeed, I understand that it is the current position of the UK Independence Party that the 1949 Ireland Act and its provisions regarding the rights of Irish citizens to freely travel to and from the UK should remain in place post Brexit, which begs the question, I suppose, of why you are discriminating against the nationals of other nation states, when you’re not discriminating against the nationals of the Republic of Ireland. That’s a matter for you to answer. Some 13,000 academic staff in Welsh universities came from EU countries, and nearly 50 per cent of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified elsewhere in the EU. In the health and social care sector, as of September 2015, around 1,400 EU nationals were employed in NHS Wales. Indeed, you are more likely to be treated by a migrant in the NHS than to be behind a migrant in an NHS queue.

A report published by the London School of Economics this month on migration and the UK economy concluded that neither immigration as a whole, nor EU immigration in particular, has had significant negative effects on employment, wages and age inequality in the UK. The LSE paper also states that, at UK level, any falls in EU immigration are likely to lead to lower living standards for those who were born in the UK.

Indeed, we’re already seeing the real impact of the declining numbers of overseas applicants to our universities. It is worth noting, too, that, in countries with a points-based migration system, per capita migration levels are higher. As for the so-called ‘one-in, one-out’ policy, that would lead us to a damaging situation where a much-needed doctor could be stuck at Dover until a UK resident decides to leave the country, and that would be a preposterous position to be in. It is also—[Interruption.] It is also worth noting that Germany, with higher migration per capita than the UK, has stable GDP figures, public spending rose by 4.2 per cent last year, gross monthly earnings are on the rise, unemployment is at 3.9 per cent and there’s higher than average productivity in that country than in this state, which would suggest that conditions for workers in the UK are a result of the intentional structure of the economy on the part of successive Governments at Westminster. Indeed, I recall, in 1998, Gordon Brown celebrating the fact that even with the introduction of such measures as the minimum wage, the UK labour market was among the least regulated around the world, and that was a cause for celebration.

Now, of course, we are living with the consequences of a light-touch approach to our labour laws in the UK. Declining wages, exploitative working conditions, light-touch regulation and a diminishing industrial base have been the cornerstone of British economic policy since the 1980s at least, and working people, particularly in the former industrial communities of Wales, are paying the price, literally. So, we need an economic paradigm shift in this country that is place based, industry driven and centred on the worker and their rights, no matter where they were born.

I call on the leader of the house to move formally amendment 3, tabled in her name.

Amendment 3—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Reaffirms support for the joint Welsh Government/Plaid Cymru White Paper Securing Wales’ Future which balances jobs and the economy with the need to address concerns about the impact of migration on vulnerable communities.

2. Supports the approach set out in Securing Wales’ Future:

a) to link the right of EU/EEA nationals to move to the UK after Brexit, to employment; and

b) to increase efforts to prevent the exploitation of workers, particularly those on low pay.

Amendment 3 moved.

Formally.

I’d like to confine my comments to the Conservatives’ amendments. First, can I take point 1? That is, of course, after ignoring the usual fallacious point of ‘delete all’, a gambit that should be disallowed. Amendments should be instruments to alter, not annul motions, and I notice that the other two parties are using exactly same ploy this evening. But I will be magnanimous in saying that we would agree with the points made in amendments 2 and 4 by Plaid Cymru, and in 2(b) by the Labour Party.

First, can I take point 1? UKIP acknowledges the fact that Britain and Wales have always had a welcoming society and understands the part played by immigrants in the history of these islands. However, to pursue a policy of uncontrolled open immigration when we have upwards of 1.5 million unemployed is an indictment of both Conservative and Labour Governments.

As an example, some 80,000 British students each year fail to find places on nursing courses, whilst the NHS continues to hire thousands of nurses from abroad. Add this to the fact that there are thousands of 40-plus nurses who have left to have families and now wish to come back to nursing but cannot do so because they find the NHS prefers younger foreign nurses. Perhaps the fact that it costs the NHS £70,000 to train a nurse—[Interruption.] I think, Steffan, we’ve heard you most of the evening, so if I could just be allowed my time at this rostrum. They hire three foreign-trained nurses for an average salary of £24,000—that is their reason for doing this. Let’s get away from this nonsense of the NHS coming to a halt if we do not import nurses. The simple truth is that we want nurses on the cheap. The same, of course, applies to doctors, so we continue to plunder third-world countries to meet our own needs.

I wish now to turn to the second point of the Conservative amendments. Recent events indicate that the UK Government shows scant regard for public services—recently highlighted cuts in the police and fire service bear witness to that. As for our universities continuing to recruit the brightest and the best from around the world, this is something they were doing well before the European Union and the advent of uncontrolled immigration. The difference, of course, was that those students actually paid their tuition fees. Today, the stark fact is that many abscond without repaying their student loans, leaving us with a £5 billion debt at 2013 figures.

As for skilled labour for the business sector, we’re actually turning away skilled labour from across the world in favour of unskilled and semi-skilled labour from the European Union.

Hefin David rose—

Yes, of course.

Just to say, universities in Wales are suffering because of the Conservative Government’s immigration policies, which are turning away students who could come to the UK. I know this from experience. I have to say, David Rowlands, I don’t think you’re right about that.

Well, providing those students pay their way and actually do pay for their education here, we ought to be welcoming them. Absolutely.

I’ll deal with Conservatives’ third amendment with a reminder of the Conservative pledges under Cameron before the previous general election. He said:

‘Our plan to control immigration will put you, your family and the British people first. We will reduce the number of people coming to our country with tough new welfare conditions and robust enforcement.’

Though how this was to reduce immigration, given the oft-repeated statement that immigrants do not come here for benefits, appeared to be something of an anomaly. However, he went on to say:

‘We will keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands’, not the present hundreds of thousands. ‘We will control migration’—[Interruption.] Did you want to say something, Carl? I will give way if you want. No. Okay.

‘We will control migration from the European Union, by reforming welfare rules’.

Again, intimating that UK welfare rules encourage immigration.

‘We will clamp down on illegal immigration and abuse of the minimum wage’.

Well, we see that that is not being done.

‘We will enhance our border security and strengthen the enforcement of immigration rules’.

And lastly,

‘Develop a fund to ease pressure on local areas and public services.’

All this proves the amendment put forward by the Conservative group, and the points under that amendment, show the turmoil that now exists under the Conservatives with regard to immigration, and that the Assembly Conservatives’ amendments seem to put them at complete odds with their Westminster counterparts.

We are invited in this debate to treat UKIP as having clean hands on the issue of immigration. We are invited to regard the fact that UKIP have been elected to this place as cleansing the stain of insinuation, dog whistle and bigotry—but they do not have clean hands. Getting elected to the Assembly does not erase the stain of former campaigns where they ran posters of refugees fleeing persecution as a line of migrants into the EU, where they used migrants as scapegoats for all our ills: Romanian crime waves and, ludicrously, M4 congestion. None of you—Neil Hamilton, Caroline Jones, Gareth Bennett, Michelle Brown, David Rowlands—none of you have denounced that campaign.

UKIP instead has played on people’s fears; fears of pressures in their lives. You hid the fact—[Interruption.] You hid the fact that public services depend on migrants, pitting community against community. You hid the fact that working-age populations aren’t big enough for the support we want to give our pensioners, pitting generation against generation.

People do have fears about immigration. We do need an immigration system that reflects our national economic interest and reflects our commitment to compassion. But, you have forfeited any right to be heard on this issue by the distortions and prejudice that you’ve dripped into people’s ears for years—[Interruption.] I’m about to finish.

People look to politicians for leadership and honesty and the results of the general election campaign show they found neither in UKIP.

And Jeremy, that is precisely—

Gareth Bennett. Gareth Bennett.

[Continues.]—why we are here, because you did not listen to the people.

Gareth Bennett.

We’re having this debate today because we are coming out of the EU and we need to work out what kind of Brexit we actually want, in particular, what kind of immigration policy we want. Our motion talks about a firm but fair system of immigration, it notes the Bank of England’s paper on the impact of immigration on wages and it looks at the issue of balancing immigration and emigration as a medium-term aim.

There are many amendments to our motion that have come from the other parties and my colleague David Rowlands has just looked at the Conservative ones.

Now, to some extent, the Labour and Plaid Cymru positions on this subject were laid out in their joint document, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, which they brought out earlier this year. So, we can look to that for some detail of the immigration policies that they propose, which are also reflected in their amendments today.

Some of the points raised in their joint paper are quite interesting in themselves. For instance, the document states that an additional 100,000 construction workers are estimated to be needed in the UK by 2020. I note that there are lots of unemployed young people in the former industrial areas of Wales. I would say this skills shortage, combined with our latent labour force, could provide a perfect opportunity to reinvigorate apprenticeships and relieve the problem of NEETs—young people not in education, employment or training. It could, in other words, be an opportunity rather than a problem.

Some of the skills shortages highlighted in their joint paper are decidedly odd. For instance, 50 per cent of vets are from outside the UK, yet we are traditionally a nation of animal lovers, so why aren’t we able to train our own vets? The basic premise that Labour and Plaid are highlighting—[Interruption.] Well, why aren’t we? Vets are one example—there are many others. Why aren’t we able to do that? [Interruption.] Okay.

The basic premise that Labour and Plaid are highlighting in their document is a skills shortage. The worry they are trying to perpetuate is that a so-called hard Brexit would harm businesses’ access to skills, yet the vast majority of EU migrants who come to the UK come to fill low-skilled jobs. So, it is not actually businesses’ access to skills that is likely to be affected so much as their access to cheap labour. It is sometimes curious to note that the Labour Party is worried about businesses being able to access cheap labour since they normally portray themselves as the party that wants to raise wages. Yet, in their position on migration, they actually position themselves in such a way as to become a party that effectively wants to keep wages down.

Plaid, of course, have signed up to many of the same positions as Labour. There is an argument advanced by Labour and Plaid, in their document, that, post Brexit, we should not have the same freedom of movement of workers that we have now, but we should have a different system, and this will be related to jobs or offers of jobs, as the First Minister has explained to us in the Chamber. Well, when we look at the actual wording of the Labour/Plaid Cymru document, it is decidedly vague on this point of the job offer. I quote:

‘This might involve the prior offer of a job or the ability to secure an offer within a short time of arrival in the country’.

End of quote. [Interruption.] I haven’t got time, Simon.

You’ve got plenty of time.

Well, maybe I have time, but I don’t have the inclination.

That’s a different answer.

That was an excellent answer.

I’m afraid this approach seems to beg more questions than it delivers answers. What is the evidence of this job offer? What checks would there be to prevent—[Interruption.]

Can we allow Gareth Bennett to continue, please?

Thank you. What is the evidence of this job offer? What checks would there be to prevent bogus job offers? What exactly constitutes a short time? How would these people be tracked if they had a job and then left it?

Finally, the joint Labour and Plaid Cymru document says that it wants, and I quote,

‘A strong culture of enforcement of legislation to prevent the exploitation of workers.’

End of quote. But we know, as it is a matter of record, that there have been pitifully few successful prosecutions by HMRC for not paying the minimum wage. The joint document says it will push for ‘much stronger enforcement’ of minimum wage legislation. What the document signally doesn’t say is how it will do this, which puts rather a gaping hole in their plan to stop worker exploitation. So, I would be interested to hear what the Government Minister has to say about this today.

I wanted to speak briefly in this debate to make an appeal to all Members here and to everyone who might aspire to become an elected Member in the future.

A lot has been said about immigration and many people in the immigration debate confuse refugees with free movement of people in a way that isn’t helpful. The way in which this debate has taken place has, in some instances, left a very nasty taste in the mouth, in particular the way in which immigration was represented during the EU referendum debate. I refer here to that toxic poster that evoked an anti-refugee poster from 1930s Germany. If you put those two posters together, the similarities are remarkable. Yet the status of refugees was never an issue in the EU referendum. Pulling out of the EU will make no difference to our international obligations to provide asylum for those fleeing war or persecution, and to give the impression that it would was misleading at best, vicious propaganda at worst. And there are consequences to the tone of this debate. I’m sure everyone in this Chamber was as dismayed and abhorred as I was to hear the news about a man who had moved to Cardiff, driving a hired van into a group of people outside a London mosque. An appalling incident, I’m sure everyone would agree. And we must all take it upon ourselves to reduce the likelihood of something like that happening again.

And I’d like to take this opportunity this afternoon to say this to all of our Muslim neighbours: we know that the vast majority of you would abhor violent extremism as much as we do, and I’m sure that you are concerned in this current climate. Plaid Cymru believes that everyone must work together to root out violent extremism from our communities and to create the conditions whereby we can all live together as good neighbours without fear and without hate. But we can’t do that if politicians and aspiring politicians give false information, use Nazi-style propaganda to make their points, and speak in a tone in this debate that fuels people’s fears, prejudices and bigotry. We are one Wales. Everyone living here deserves respect and deserves to be included in our society and in our communities. All of us should feel safe as we good around our daily business. People of colour should be able to live without racism. Muslims should be able to live without Islamophobia.

I’ve not named names here this afternoon. We all know the tone that I am referring to, and, unfortunately, this isn’t just confined to one particular political party. Wherever it comes from, some people take their cues from politicians. We all have to take that responsibility seriously and I appeal to politicians everywhere to step up to that responsibility.

I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Llywydd. I am responding to this debate this afternoon and I will start by saying how important migration has been, as such an important part of Wales’s history and it will be an important part of our future today, and I think that’s been certainly reflected from contributions in parts of this Chamber today. It’s very much reflected in the White Paper that we jointly put forward with Plaid Cymru, and much of what I say in my response will be very much underpinned by the White Paper. Citizens of other countries who live in Wales make huge contributions to our economy, our public services and our communities, and we heard a bit about that, a flavour of that, in the earlier inspiring debate on refugees in Wales. And of course we have to also say—and I very much support Steffan’s opening remarks on this point, in moving his amendment—that it is vital that the rights of EEA nationals currently in the UK are protected. We’ve been repeatedly calling for that as a Welsh Government, as well as for rights to be reciprocal for UK citizens in EEA countries.

We do recognise that we need to manage migration, as Jeremy Miles has said, through connecting migration more closely to employment, offering flexibility, supporting our ambition for full and unfettered access to the European single market. And exploitation of our workforce, of course, is a key and important issue to debate in this Assembly. Too many workers are exploited by unscrupulous employers, undermining wage levels and terms and conditions for all workers, and we recognise that migrants can be particularly vulnerable to this. But the issue we need address here is not immigration but exploitation, and, of course, the UK Government can do much more to tackle exploitation by employers who don’t pay the minimum wage or who deny workers their statutory rights, and the Welsh Government is already doing what it can to drive compliance with labour laws, and these are important issues to debate. For example, our code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains sets out our clear expectations for employers across Wales to embed ethical work practices in their organisations and stop labour exploitation. It should be noted, of course, that we have much lower levels of migration in Wales than most other parts of the UK, and many people who have chosen to live and work in Wales play a vital role in delivering our public services. In the Welsh NHS alone, there are over 1,300 dedicated staff from the EU. In fact, 7 per cent of all Welsh doctors are from the EU. But there are also many people born overseas who work in our key economic sectors who play a role in the success of our academic institutions—Andrew R.T. Davies acknowledged this—in terms of research in our universities. These are people who we equally want to see staying in Wales and coming to live and work in Wales in the future.

Clearly, we want to ensure that people in Wales are able to access high-quality jobs and, to do so, to provide the support they need at school or later in life to develop the skills they need to access these opportunities. So, we’re doing that through the skills priorities set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, which includes supporting people seeking employability skills, creating apprentice opportunities and promoting innovation and connectivity. Where there are skills shortages and gaps, our actions will help to address these in the longer term. But, in the shorter term, we need to be able to recruit staff from overseas to fill key vacancies.

UKIP asked us to note the Bank of England working paper. Its findings may be relevant, but they have to be taken into account in terms of the wider context. I would also draw attention to the London School of Economics paper, which, Steffan Lewis, your amendment responds to, because it’s worth repeating what Steffan Lewis said. It concluded that there are no significantly large negative effects on employment, wages and wage inequality for the UK-born population. But I would also draw attention to the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which showed immigration creates a net benefit for the public finances.

But I would also like to make a point in terms of the factors that I think UKIP should be addressing. I draw attention to the factors that have a far greater effect on people’s earnings, such as inflation, which is at its highest point in years, which the Bank of England has attributed to the depreciation of sterling and the run-up to and then the aftermath of last year’s referendum. Fiscal austerity, again, results in a very severe squeeze on public sector pay. The lack of investment in infrastructure is another notable feature of the UK Government’s policies of fiscal austerity, weakening productivity, and that, in turn, leads to lower pay growth. The legislated minimum wage and the way it’s enforced will also influence wage levels and growth, and the Welsh Government is itself accredited as a living wage employer by the Living Wage Foundation. The Welsh NHS has been paying the real living wage to all its employees since 2015, and we’re promoting the benefits of the real living wage more broadly across the public sector and the economy. It does form part of our code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains.

The Welsh Government has outlined an approach comprising a focus on migration linked to employment, supported by strong labour laws and increased opportunities for all. We believe this is the best option for our wider economy and our workforce, and that it gives the UK the best options going into negotiations. There are aspects of both the Conservative and Plaid Cymru amendments that we can agree with, which endorse this approach.

I think, finally, Llywydd, I would say that it would have been welcome if UKIP had taken the opportunity to not only welcome the work undertaken by the Welsh Government to tackle exploitation of our workforce wherever they come from, but also to join us in calling for an end to the era of austerity, low wages and the public sector pay cap, all still driven by a Conservative Government, which means our public sector workforce have been trapped in low wage growth for seven years. This debate, I fear, does reveal sharp divisions in this Senedd with the politics espoused by UKIP, which are abhorrent to the majority in this place. I think, Llywydd, this is a week where we’re celebrating the contribution of refugees in Wales, and it is relevant to this debate following an inspiring debate this afternoon on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, a debate about the contribution that refugees are making and want to make, and the ways in which we’re seeking to support them to do so. It’s very sad that that debate, that very inspiring debate, has been followed by a debate where, again, the true nature of UKIP’s divisive and negative views reside. Jeremy Miles was right to draw attention to UKIP’s form on this, as, indeed, was Leanne Wood.

I would say, finally, this motion goes against the grain of the values and the political perspective of the majority of people in this Assembly and the people whom we represent in Wales. Wales can be a sanctuary. It can be a welcoming country with a vibrant economy. We will debate with UKIP, but we will never, never, never agree with the ill-informed and bigoted views that UKIP is proclaiming today. I urge you to support our amendment.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suppose it was inevitable that other parties’ contributors to this debate would just refuse to engage with the real burden of our motion, which was wage compression. There’s no dispute by UKIP about the virtues of migration. Indeed, I went out of my way in my speech to say that the real problems that we are seeing today have arisen only since 2004 in relation to EU migration, because of the speed of the inflows that we’ve experienced, and that has had an inevitable impact upon low wages, which is something that the LSE study neglects to deal with. The Bank of England study and many others that I could have named—and I could list them now, because I’ve got all of the reports with me—have come to the same conclusion, and it’s obvious anyway: when you increase supply relative to demand, then you tend to depress price.

It’s a great shame that the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru in particular refuse to engage with what the overwhelming majority of British people feel: that immigration has been out of control, continues to be out of control and must be controlled. If they simply stick their heads under the bedclothes and refuse to acknowledge the problem, then that’s what produces social unrest. That is, at the moment, fortunately, not the position in the United Kingdom, but if we went into a downswing, it might well be in due course.

This debate has nothing whatever to do with refugees—a complete red herring raised by the leader of Plaid Cymru. This is a debate about the economic effects of migration, and I do deprecate the contribution of Jeremy Miles and, indeed, the attempt by the leader of Plaid Cymru yet again to smear us as racists and haters of foreigners, et cetera. If we were to expose the record of many prominent members of the Labour Party, with their anti-Semitic rants and references, including the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who has many times refused to apologise for describing Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia who murder Jews, as friends, then I can smear the Labour Party with the same brush. What about Naz Shah, Member of Parliament, who has tweeted that Israelis should be transported to the United States from the Middle East, so the Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference from the United States? Are they going to condemn Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah? Are they representative of the views of the Labour Party? They are more representative of the views of the Labour Party, because, with the likes of Ken Livingstone still in the Labour Party, who has himself been responsible for making violently anti-Semitic remarks, they are far more at risk of being tainted with racism than UKIP will ever be.

This debate—[Interruption.] This debate was intended to be a serious debate about the economic effects of immigration, and it’s pathetic, actually, that other Members, like Jeremy Miles, have been so infantile as to pervert it into the kind of name-calling that has been seen today. The education Secretary is just as bad, from a sedentary position, as well. If she were in school, she’d be sent to the back of the class or sent out of the room for disorderly behaviour. So, it’s only UKIP that actually will raise these issues, which is why we got 12 per cent of the vote in the election last May, and we do have a democratic right to be here to speak for those who voted for us, and that we will continue to do. I urge everybody to vote for our motion today.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.