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

We now move on to the UKIP debate on Brexit and rural areas. I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion. Neil.

Motion NDM6371 Neil Hamilton

To propose that the National Assembly:

1. Believes that Brexit:

a) enables the Welsh people to have more control over their own lives by devolving governmental powers from unelected technocrats in Brussels to Assembly Members in Cardiff and MPs at Westminster;

b) can create more prosperity for agriculture and the rural economy, by replacing the CAP with an agricultural policy tailor-made for Wales’s specific needs, with special reference to conservation and environmental protection based on scientific principles and incurring proportionate cost to rural taxpayers and businesses.

2. Believes that the Welsh Government should develop other tailor made policies for rural areas within a localism agenda which empowers local people by:

a) making major planning decisions with a significant adverse impact on the quality of life, such as intrusive wind-farms, subject to local referendums;

b) making major changes to the provision of rural schools and other educational services subject to genuine local consultation;

c) facilitating more affordable rural housing; and

d) giving greater priority to the provision of NHS facilities in smaller rural towns.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I see from the number of empty seats in the Chamber today we’ve reached the dog days of summer, but we are left, at least, with the cream of Assembly Members to listen to this debate. The essence of this motion is localism and devolution, and that’s what the Brexit process enables us to extend.

I want, before going on to the motion, to address the amendments. I don’t know why the Conservative group always has to delete everything in our motion and then put down something that is almost identical. This kind of predatory behaviour of gobbling up our motion is most reprehensible, I think, but there is nothing that we can disagree with in the Conservative amendments apart from the words ‘Delete all and replace with’ And, of course, I do understand that Plaid Cymru has a different view about the EU withdrawal Bill from us, but I do think, for reasons that I explained yesterday, that those fears are misplaced.

The First Minister chided me yesterday as having changed my view in some shape or form, that as a result of Brexit all the powers currently enjoyed in devolved areas by Brussels shouldn’t come to the Assembly. I still believe that very strongly, and I do repeat what I’ve said many times before, that Wales should not be a penny worse off as a result of leaving the EU, in terms of public funding, and therefore that every penny of what the EU now currently spends in Wales should be added to the Welsh Government’s block grant, so that we can then as an Assembly decide on our priorities. Of course, this is vitally important to rural areas in particular, because agriculture and the environment are those areas of policy where there is greatest scope for devolution from the European Union.

Although I’m not inclined to trust Theresa May on much, I do think that it would be very difficult to imagine circumstances in which the Government could resile from such categorical statements as the one that I quoted yesterday, where Theresa May said in the House of Commons that, no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them’.

And, indeed, the Secretary of State, Alun Cairns, said as recently as 23 June, when asked by Paul Flynn in a written question in the House of Commons whether any additional legislative competencies will be devolved to the National Assembly as a consequence of leaving the EU—he responded:

The Government expects that there will be a significant increase in the powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU.’

And as the Government has already said that it will seek a consent motion in this Assembly as part of the process, clearly, we do have a lever there to ensure that those categorical statements are delivered upon. So, I have no fears about the EU withdrawal Bill posing, in any way, a threat to our powers, and there will be no land grab. The Government would be very foolish to try to do so. There’s nothing in it for them to gain from that.

But we have to accept, I think, that Britain is part of the United Kingdom, and negotiating international trade agreements is a UK competence. The Government can’t put itself in a position where, say, for example, Nicola Sturgeon would seek to hold them hostage pending the actual exit process. So, it’s clearly vitally necessary that there be this kind of transitional stage, but at the end of it, when all those powers have been restored to the United Kingdom from the EU, that our fair share of what we’re due under the existing devolution settlement should be brought here to Cardiff, so that we can take the important decisions for ourselves.

As a representative for Mid and West Wales, of course, I’m acutely aware of the importance of this to our constituents. I believe that the opportunity to devolve most agricultural decisions, despite the fact there will inevitably need to be significant agreement between the various nations of the United Kingdom on certain frameworks, to mutual advantage subsequently—. Nevertheless, it’s vitally important that we should be able to make our own priorities for ourselves. And I don’t have any fear, also, for farmers and others involved in agriculture that markets are going to disappear and their livelihoods are under threat. We have a massive deficit in trade with the EU on food and drink, and if the EU were to be so foolish as to refuse to enter into some kind of free trade successor agreement with us, then we would be able to expand our home market very significantly for most agricultural products. Lamb is the only significant problem in my opinion in this respect, but the figures involved are relatively small as part of the total budget. So, whatever the outcome, whatever the difficulties—and there are bound to be pluses and minuses in any huge change of this kind—we should be able to accommodate them comfortably from within the Brexit dividend. For every £5 that farmers currently get from the EU, we pay £10 to Brussels in order to get it. So, there’s plenty of scope there for us to tweak the system. So, I’m not pessimistic about that at all.

The advantage of more localised decision taking is that we’re no longer making these important decisions on a continental scale. That’s the big problem with the CAP. There are 28 countries and we have to have an agricultural policy that works all the way from the North Cape down to Greece and Gibraltar. And with climatic and topographical conditions being so varied, inevitably Wales gets the short end of the straw. But when we’re in charge of our own agricultural policy, we’ll be able to tailor-make an agricultural policy specifically to the needs of Wales, and a very good thing that will be too. And we’ll be able to make our own decisions on matters like herbicides, for example, and animal welfare, and we’ll be able to—[Interruption.] Sorry?

Animals are animals across Europe.

They may well be, but if decision making bodies are over-regulating, that’s a matter of significant concern to us. The EU wants to ban Asulox, for example, which is very important in the control of bracken on the hills. And we’ve had an annual exemption from what they want to do for the last six years. We’ll be able to decide for ourselves whether that’s a sensible policy or not, which it isn’t. The EU may want to get rid of glyphosate as a weed killer, which we buy in supermarkets as Roundup. This is not a sensible decision, but we’ll be able to take that decision in future rather than unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Farmers have enormous problems with cross-compliance because, at the minute, they have to dot every i and cross every t of the complicated regulations that the EU imposes upon us, and we’ll be able to go through the whole gamut of such regulations for ourselves to decide which of those we want to keep, which are excessive and which we can dispense with altogether. So, all in all, bringing decisions down to the lowest sensible level is, I think, a vitally important and valuable thing for us to be able to do.

The other parts of our motion, which refer to other areas of that kind, unrelated to the EU—for example, consultation on the closure of rural schools or decisions about the siting of windfarms, for example—are vitally important, I think, in terms of maintaining the purity and integrity of our wonderful landscapes in mid Wales. I don’t like to see forests of windmills popping up on the hilltops and, of course, they’re deeply unpopular in the communities that have them plonked upon them. We don’t have to get into arguments about climate change and man-made global warming in order to advance this argument, because even if you accept the theories of man-made global warming, it must be obvious that the contribution that can be made to the solution of problems of climate change by having an extreme view of siting windfarms in inappropriate places—it makes no real contribution to the solution of the problem at all. But people’s lives are wrecked, and if we had some local means of control, then we would be able to block such decisions. So, it’s vitally important to us that we take proper cognisance of the special problems that exist in areas where we have sparse populations and difficult transport links, and we have the constitutional means of addressing them in the most efficient way. I believe that leaving the EU contributes to that process, although it’s not the be-all and end-all of the entire thing.

If we take fishing, for example—again, very important to us—Mid and West Wales has probably about 75 per cent of the coastline of Wales. The common fisheries policy has absolutely devastated the fishing industry in the whole United Kingdom. It’s been an ecological disaster as well, as we all know, with the policy of discards.

Will the Member give way?

I give way happily, yes.

I remember, a few years ago, going to visit the Welsh sea fishermen’s association, when, at one point, the Spanish—there was a big issue about the Spanish in Cornwall, and they were burning Spanish flags in Cornwall. I went to visit the sea fishermen’s association of Wales, which was led by one Mr Gonzalez. What had actually happened is that the Welsh fishermen had sold their quotas to the Spanish. So, to blame the EU for that, I think, is disingenuous.

Well, that, of course, is a distraction from the real issue: that, before 1973, the EU had no effective fishing waters and, as a result of our joining, the CFP was cobbled together in order that British waters could be plundered, the result of which has been that our fishing industry is now substantially smaller than it was 40 years ago. The number of fishermen is down by 40 per cent, the number of vessels is down by 28 per cent, and we’ve lived through an ecological disaster in the North sea and elsewhere, which is widely recognised.

Eluned Morgan rose—

I’m not going to take a second intervention, I’m sorry. [Interruption.] The Member can make her own speech, and I hope she does. But it does give us the opportunity to revive the Welsh fishing industry, and not just inshore fisheries, of course, which are not affected by the CFP, but to go further afield. I don’t think you’ll find many people involved in the fishing industry who think that the common fisheries policy has been the boon that some Members seem to think it is. The result has been industrialised fishing on a massive scale, which has put small fishermen out of business, and we’ll be able to make significant changes to that.

So, there are many reasons why we should support this motion, but as I said right at the start, this is all about bringing down decision making to the lowest possible level so that ordinary people can feel that they have a real role to play in the processes by which their lives are to be controlled and representative bodies such as this, elected by the people, ultimately bear the full responsibility for taking those decisions, and we are accountable to the people. That doesn’t happen at the moment.

Thank you very much. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in his name.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that leaving the European Union offers the opportunity to devolve more powers to the National Assembly for Wales.

2. Acknowledges that there will be an opportunity to reduce the amount of red tape facing Welsh farmers and expects the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to deliver a post-Brexit framework that supports Welsh farmers.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to do more to support rural communities across Wales, by developing more tailor-made policies in the areas of health, education and housing.

Amendment 1 moved.

I move the amendment tabled in my name. The decision by the people of Britain to leave the European Union last year will have a significant impact on rural communities across Wales, as well as the industries that are based on rural communities. As we all know, rural Wales is home to 33 per cent of the Welsh population and the vitality and future of those communities must be placed firmly on the agenda of the Welsh Government. It is therefore essential, as we leave the EU, that the powers to better support rural Wales are transferred directly to this Senedd.

I fully accept that there is a need to do much more work on the UK Government Bill that deals with exiting the European Union, so as to ensure that the existing powers of this place are safeguarded and that the responsibility for devolved matters entirely lies here and not elsewhere. Indeed, I hope that the intergovernmental negotiations that will take place to repatriate powers from Brussels will devolve greater powers to this place so as to provide better support to rural communities. This would confer even more resources and responsibilities on the Welsh Government, and as a result, the Government should bring forward policies that address the specific challenges facing rural Wales.

Of course, a central part of our rural communities is the agriculture sector, and as Britain leaves the European Union, the Welsh Government has an excellent opportunity to examine the current regulatory landscape for farmers and establish better ways of supporting farmers. Exiting the European Union means that we now have the opportunity to revamp the regulatory burdens for Welsh farmers to ensure that more voluntary means are adopted, and that when regulations are introduced, they are introduced because of clear evidence. It is absolutely essential that the level of support available to Welsh farmers puts them on a level playing field with their competitors, and that is why establishing a permanent agricultural framework on a British level is so important.

Of course, today’s debate is not only about the impact of Brexit on agriculture; it is also about the provision of services in rural areas. The Welsh Government must recognise that having one governance model for all of Wales is completely unacceptable, and that the needs of rural communities are very different from those of urban communities.

In my constituency, we have seen a number of important health services at the local hospital shut down and centralised, forcing patients to travel further for treatments and services. This is completely unacceptable and shows no regard whatsoever for the wishes and needs of those living in rural communities in west Wales. Even as we debate these issues this afternoon, Hywel Dda health board is again consulting on the removal of services in Pembrokeshire; in this case, it is seeking to centralise mental health services.

As Britain prepares to leave the EU, there is now an opportunity for the Welsh Government to pause and rethink the way it manages the delivery of services in rural areas. Unfortunately, since 1999, 227 schools across Wales have closed, with rural areas being worst affected. Government figures themselves tell us that 41 schools have been closed in north Wales since devolution. Although I accept the current Cabinet Secretary for Education is finally strengthening measures to protect schools, this will be of no comfort to those communities that have lost their schools and who have lost a vital community hub. These services provide a vital link for rural towns and villages, and they help to deliver much needed services, as well as tying communities together.

Members will be aware that we on this side of the Chamber are still calling for an independent panel to be set up, comprising representatives of rural communities and industries across Wales, which are much better placed to scrutinise the impact of Welsh Government policies on local environments, in order to ensure that Welsh Government policies do not negatively impact rural communities. I hope that the Government will now consider this. The Welsh Government must send a clear message to rural communities that they will have parity with urban parts of the country in terms of the development and funding of policies.

Today’s motion explains that Brexit could lead to significant opportunities for rural Wales, but it fails to recognise that there are significant challenges as well. The Welsh Government needs to better engage with rural Wales to meet those challenges. So, in closing, Presiding Officer, I wish to reiterate the importance of our rural communities, not only to our economy but also our culture. The Welsh language is is an integral part of our rural communities and our rural economy. For example, we know that agriculture has the highest proportion of Welsh speakers of any sector. Therefore, it is essential that the Welsh Government does much more to support our rural communities. The Government must use current and new levers to secure the future of our rural communities, and I urge Members to support our amendment.

Thank you very much, and I call on Simon Thomas to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete all and replace with:

Believes that the current approach to Brexit through the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill blocks the exercise of devolved powers by the Assembly and endangers the control people in Wales have over their lives.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment. It is the end of term, but there’s no excuse for groundhog day once again. I have to say, we have been around these issues a number of times over the year and twice this week, so I will be very succinct and I won’t reiterate too much of what I said yesterday.

It is quite simple, Plaid Cymru is clearly of the view that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, whatever the correct title in Welsh is, is a Bill that rolls back powers from Wales, from the people of Wales, the Assembly and the Parliament, which incorporates the sovereignty of Wales. Of course, I will have an entirely different perspective on this to UKIP. UKIP believes in the sovereignty of Westminster. UKIP believes in the sovereignty of the UK being over and above the sovereignty of the people of Wales. We as a party don’t accept that. We don’t accept that as the party for independence for Wales.

We also see this as an entirely cynical move by the Tory party—that they are using a vote in one referendum to overturn the decision that they didn’t like in another referendum. In 2011, there was a referendum result that wasn’t 52 to 48 per cent, but was 66 to 67 per cent, at least, in favour of this Parliament legislating in fisheries, agriculture, environment, health and education, and so on, too. The fact that this Bill now and the fact that the Conservative Government in Westminster now wishes to use the excuse of Brexit to hold the devolution process back is one of the most cynical things that I have seen recently, certainly since 2011. If there was any doubt—if there was any doubt—that the Conservatives weren’t willing to do this, and if we could join Neil Hamilton in believing the fine words of Theresa May, we saw just last night, with the trade union Bill, that it was the Conservatives’ intention to overturn any Bill passed here that they don’t agree with or aren’t content with. It is utterly antidemocratic and it clearly shows that they are using the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in that same way.

I have listened very carefully, for over a year, to Neil Hamilton and I’ve been waiting for the florid rhetoric to disappear and for some ideas to be brought forward as to what the future of agriculture is after Brexit and after we have left the European Union—but not only the European Union, but according to his aspiration, the single market and the customs union too. So, what is the vision? I have seen nothing of that vision, just a pipe dream. That’s all I’ve seen.

Today, we were given some insight into that nightmare: the lands of Wales washed with chemicals, polluted, contaminated and totally overused. The only thing he’s proposed is the use of herbicide to kill ferns on our hillsides. There is not any sort of future for the marketing of lambs who eat on the hillside, no sort of future for the farmers who depend on suckler cows, and no sort of future for the farmers who depend on a market worth millions of pounds. It’s no sort of vision at all.

I can go to the Royal Welsh Show in Llanelwedd next week and speak with some sort of credibility, but I wish him luck if he tries to do that. I will stick to my views as an Assembly Member who represents the same region as him, but also as an Assembly Member for Plaid Cymru. We believe most strongly that we need to retain that relationship with the single market for farmers, retain that relationship with the customs union and, more importantly, that we need to safeguard the environment that we have—the clean environment that supports food of the highest quality and animal welfare of the highest standards. That is what is special about Wales and the Welsh language is part of that too. Anything that UKIP portrays here is going to destroy the nation as we know it, and I’m not content with that. That’s why we entirely reject the motion before us today in the name of UKIP and have put an alternative amendment in its place.

The last thing I will say is that we truly need to see the continuity Bill from the Government. It is too late in the day now to hope—as the First Minister said yesterday—that amendments will be tabled in Westminster. We cannot trust the Conservatives or Westminster on this. I know that in your hearts, Labour Members, you know that you can’t trust the Conservatives on this. So, bring forward a continuity Bill and stand up for the rights of the Welsh Parliament.

We’re bringing this debate today because we are interested—as, I expect, are all Members—in reviving the rural economy. We have related today’s motion to the subject of Brexit, not to needlessly cause a commotion in the Chamber on the last day of term, but rather to look at the opportunities that might flow from Brexit. Now, I know that we have had a few minor disagreements in this place over the pros and cons of Brexit, and we are still having a certain amount of cordial discussion here over what precise form Brexit will or should take. Well, I don’t want to go into the form of Brexit too much as that is, I feel, a debate we had yesterday—as Simon Thomas alluded to—to some extent, and one that we will probably resume once we get back here after the recess in September—and the debate will probably be going on for some time after that. What we perhaps can agree on is that some kind of Brexit is going to happen, so we need to think about what opportunities Brexit might offer us and how some of those opportunities can aid the rural community.

In addition to opportunities flowing from Brexit, there are also levers that already lie within the legal competence of the Assembly that can be used to help the rural economy. Also, there are powers that have recently flowed into, or are about to flow into, the Assembly due to tax raising competence. All of the parties that were represented in the Chamber in the fourth Assembly wanted the tax powers, so now is the time for us to think constructively about how to use them in terms of the rural economy.

One crucial element in all this is housing. I think if we want to retain rural settlements in their current form, we need to act decisively and precisely here. What we don’t particularly need is for rural settlements to lose their character by becoming mere dormitory towns for larger towns and cities; this is not a future we want to promote for them. We therefore need to be wary about unsympathetic large-scale housing developments, and about building on the green belt. Of course, we need rural housing, but it needs to be developed in a sympathetic way and in accordance with the wishes of the local population. With major developments, we think that local people should be meaningfully consulted. If there is a controversial development, then there should be scope for a legally binding local referendum. This means that, if there are enough signatories, a community could have a vote on a development, and the relevant planning authority would be legally obliged to take note and act accordingly. With such legally binding local referenda, the concept of localism would take some kind of meaningful form. There should also be an enhanced role for town and community councils in the planning process.

The other side of the coin is that we also need to stimulate building if the building plan has local consent. And we know that new measures, new levers, are available to the Assembly in the sphere of house building. One of the problems inhibiting house building is the problem of land banking. This is the process whereby a handful of major national property development companies build up land assets, acquire planning permission to build houses, and then simply sit on them, rather than actually building anything. But with the new tax powers available, land banking can be tackled by bringing in a series of charges: a system of land tax on land where planning permission has already been given, but where no houses have been built. This could begin after, say, three years, and then rise year on year until the first shovel cuts into the turf. Finance Minister Mark Drakeford has already hinted at action in this direction, and we in UKIP feel that we should be moving in this direction and the Welsh Government should be empowered to take this forward. In this instance, the powers are coming to the Assembly from Westminster in the form of tax raising competence. Other powers may devolve as a result of Brexit.

For instance, once we are out of the EU, we will no longer be governed by the EU’s procurement rules. Procurement is another lever that can be used to drive economic development. Public sector bodies in Wales must be encouraged, by statute if necessary, to award public sector contracts to local companies. This might entail making the tendering process easier. We need to look at the rules and regulations post Brexit and ensure that some irrelevant regulations are ditched so that smaller firms, which tend to proliferate in rural areas, are allowed to tender for contracts. It might be that we need to bring in clauses so that a certain number of public sector contracts are allocated to Welsh firms, particularly to Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises. This is another tool that might be used to aid the rural economy.

In the rural high street we need to encourage concepts like co-location, so that shops, pubs and, perhaps, post offices can all reside in the same place. We can also use powers over business rates to help rural businesses.

Post-Brexit fisheries policies could help to revive formerly thriving Welsh fishing ports. We have touched on that earlier, and I think this is an issue that possibly needs a debate of its own when we come back next September, but there are certainly opportunities there.

Another crucial factor is the availability of broadband in rural areas. We note that the Welsh Government has consistently missed its targets on the provision of superfast broadband in rural areas, so more needs to be done there.

Will you wind up, please?

Yes, certainly. All in all, there could be a more promising future for the Welsh rural economy, if only we see the coming years as a period that could bring with it some upheaval, certainly, but also a large element of opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Eluned Morgan.

Can I thank UKIP for yet another debate on Brexit? I’m afraid that as the resolution stands, it’s full of inaccuracies and, once again, demonstrates UKIP’s lack of awareness about how the EU actually works. It paints this idealistic utopian vision of the future in Wales for a land full of milk and honey, where those pesky outsiders can’t tell us what to do and they’ll stop ordering us about.

So, here we go: paragraph 1(a) stipulates that Welsh people will have more control over their own lives’ and will stop those unelected EU technocrats from ruining everything. Well, that could be true—a woman alone in a desert has absolute total control over her life, but it’s not much value and it’s not much of a life. That’s the kind of control that Neil Hamilton would like to see in Wales.

With the publication of the repeal Bill, now called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we know that Welsh people will actually have a quieter voice than the one we had when we were allowed a seat at the table in a rotational system when agriculture and other devolved matters were discussed in Brussels.

What about this ridiculous line about ‘unelected technocrats in Brussels’? The Commission only has the power to propose laws. It’s the European Council—the elected Governments of the EU, overseen by elected Members of the European Parliament—who decide if these laws pass. To be fair, he probably isn’t aware of that, because a lot of the UKIP MEPs don’t even bother to turn up to those committees where those decisions are made.

Right, let’s move on to paragraph 1(b): Brexit will ‘create more prosperity for agriculture’ and the rural community. Well, I’d love to think that that was true, but he must know that of all the sectors in the economy where it’ll be difficult to gain tariff-free frictionless access to the EU market, it’s agriculture that is the most exposed—not even Norway has this kind of access. You know what, you can throw as many subsidies as you want at farmers, but if they have no market for their goods, it’ll be game over if they face anything like World Trade Organization tariffs of 84 per cent for cattle and 46 per cent for lamb. He suggests that we’ll be able to expand into our home market—not if we see a flood of food from Argentina, New Zealand and all these other places he wants to have deals with.

Just as an aside, the Tories are suggesting that they’re going to be able to cut red tape. Really? Do you not understand anything about the customs union? You have to fill in more forms—country of origin forms. That’s your suggestion.

On paragraph 2, empowering local people to make policies in rural areas, perhaps the leader of UKIP might like to read my proposed economic development plan for rural Wales, where we called for that bottom-up approach to economic development. He says that major planning decisions should be decided upon locally, in particular relating to windfarms. But, it must be understood that, for example, in mid Wales, with the development of a reinforced electricity grid to host the windfarms—where that was proposed and effectively rejected by the local population—there are real consequences to these decisions, as the First Minister outlined to Russell George yesterday. There’s no point bleating on about wanting an industrial estate to create jobs if you can’t get power into the area. I think people need to think hard about how they’re going to get around in future when there’s this shift to electric vehicles, but there won’t be enough electricity to charge those electric vehicles in mid Wales.

On paragraph (b), rural schools, the education Secretary has made it clear that she will put measures in place to protect small rural schools.

On paragraph (c), of course there’s a need to facilitate more affordable rural houses, but, having spoken recently to private housebuilders, who tell me that it’s simply not economically viable for them to construct in parts of rural Wales, we need to get a much better grasp of how the market works in rural Wales. The answers aren’t straightforward; they’re complex.

On paragraph (d), giving greater priority to the provision of NHS facilities in smaller rural towns, of course, it seems like a really easy statement to support, but I invite Mr Hamilton to try and find a paediatric consultant to come and work in Withybush hospital, or a GP to become a partner in St David’s Surgery. I am sure that the local health board will bite your hand off if you can find somebody.

Do you accept that one of the reasons why we don’t have sufficient numbers of GPs, consultants, or other health professionals is because of an abject failure by your Welsh Government to properly plan for the Welsh workforce that the NHS actually needs?

No. Do you know what I—? [Interruption.] Do you know what I—? [Interruption.] I’ll tell you what—. [Interruption.] Let me tell you. Let me tell you. The situation is worse now because of the kind of messages that have been sent out by people like Neil Hamilton and his ilk to those people who are supporting our NHS, who are supporting our care workers. They are people who are here from the EU, and they feel now that they are unwelcome because of Mr Hamilton and his ilk.

I think this resolution is typical of UKIP—full of glib, easy answers in a very sophisticated and complex world. They’ve made promises they can’t keep, and they won’t be kept. They have led the people of Wales and the United Kingdom up the garden path, and I predict that he will be safely miles away from Wales in his lovely house in Wiltshire if we fail to gain the promised agreements he’s made when the whole edifice comes crashing down—if we fail to get the kind of agreements that he predicts are so easy to get.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, yesterday I heard the leader of UKIP refer to soldiers emerging from the jungle to refight battles already long concluded. I assumed he was referring to today’s motion with its sad and tired derogatory opening references to unelected technocrats in Brussels. Does anyone really believe that cheap name-calling can form the basis of a successful negotiation with 27 other European countries? Does anyone really believe that abuse can form the platform from which we can build a successful future for Wales beyond the European Union?

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, it’s not a message that the movers of this motion are keen to hear, but it is a simple fact that Wales’s receipts from the CAP and from structural funds form a far larger proportion of the UK’s allocation than our Barnett share would ever do. The EU funding for the rural development programme alone is worth around £500 million in the current round, and was worth over £300 million in the previous round, and it has made a real difference to people and communities across Wales. Along with EU structural funds, these have provided hugely useful services and vital incomes to many in our rural communities.

Now, as Eluned Morgan so ably illustrated, this is a motion written by Pollyanna with a dash of help from Mr Micawber. It’s ironic indeed to be debating it today, the day after the publication of an authoritative report that I recommended to UKIP Members, ‘A Food Brexit: time to get real’. And this report, written by Professor Tim Lang, the leading food expert in the United Kingdom, together with Professor Terry Marsden from Cardiff University, concludes that leaving the European Union poses serious risks to consumer interests, public health, businesses and workers in the food sector.

But the motion is not simply flawed in its failure to grasp the reality of its own content, but in its culpable neglect of a context within which the future of Welsh communities and industries is to be shaped. It does not even, Dirprwy Lywydd, call on the UK Government to guarantee replacement funding for Wales at its current level, let alone those promises of a post-Brexit funding bonanza made by the movers of the motion. The motion does not even call on the UK Government to respect the boundaries of devolution so that this National Assembly can continue to respond to the particular needs of rural communities in Wales, and this at a time when those abilities are under such direct attack. Dirprwy Lywydd, it is difficult to take a motion seriously that does so little to take things seriously itself.

By contrast, this Government both continues to make it clear that the UK Government and those who led the campaign to leave the European Union must guarantee that every single penny that flows to Wales from the European Union must flow directly to Wales in the future and, in our recent ‘Brexit and Devolution’ policy document, we set out our thinking on how new constitutional arrangements can be developed. It is intended as a constructive contribution to the important debate needed across the United Kingdom and which is particularly important in rural areas. We will continue to press the UK Government to engage in a discussion on using this document as a starting point for developing any frameworks that are needed post Brexit on the basis of consent and agreement and not on imposition.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the messages we have from stakeholders in rural Wales are very clear: here in Wales, agriculture is not only very different in nature from other parts of the United Kingdom, but so is the role it plays in our communities and in our society, from the management of our water to tourism, and, as Paul Davies set out very clearly in his contribution, in the future of our culture and our language as well. We need to build on Wales’s reputation for high-quality produce, which is founded on our high standards that protect human health, ensure animal welfare, and support vital environmental action. These standards are the key for our future competitiveness in a global marketplace, and there are opportunities there for farmers to diversify and exploit growing markets in areas like energy.

Now, let us be clear, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the approach the UK Government has taken to the withdrawal Bill would see us lose the ability to deliver an approach that rectifies the shortcomings of the CAP and design a better, more tailored approach for Wales. Instead, on the one hand, the withdrawal Bill locks us into an outdated framework and, on the other, it removes our ability to bring forward reforms, leaving us to face Brexit with both hands tied behind our back.

Now, I listened carefully to what Paul Davies said when he spoke about the withdrawal Bill, and I take what he said this afternoon to be a constructive contribution to the way that we can think about these issues in the future—very different, I thought, to the contribution of the mover of the motion who, with typical insouciance, just regards the withdrawal Bill as something that none of us here need to worry our heads about. As we have said, this Government has been clear that we acknowledge the need for common UK approaches in some areas of agriculture, particularly where this is important for trade and for the internal functioning of the UK market, but these must be collectively developed and agreed to ensure that they work for the whole of the United Kingdom, and not imposed on us from London.

These are the important issues at stake for Welsh communities today. It is why, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Government will oppose the motion itself but support the amendment proposed by Plaid Cymru and explained so very clearly here this afternoon by Simon Thomas.

Let me very briefly turn to some specifics of the motion, Dirprwy Lywydd, to put on record the actions being taken by this Government to support all rural communities. As far as planning is concerned, we have developed our national planning policy to take account of local needs in rural areas and, in particular, to address issues around the potential for greater use of our rural areas to generate renewable energy, while addressing issues around visual impacts and amenity on neighbouring communities. Where housing is concerned, bringing forward more affordable housing in rural areas is a priority for the Welsh Government, which is why we commit to providing funding for rural housing enablers in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, and we have already seen successful projects across Wales, including Gwynedd, Ceredigion, Monmouthshire, and the Vale of Glamorgan. We will continue to fund and work with rural local authorities, housing associations, and the rural housing enablers to ensure more affordable housing is delivered in areas of real need.

You heard already from Eluned Morgan how the education Cabinet Secretary is supporting rural schools and allowing communities to have greater scope for decision making in relation to those schools, consulting recently on strengthening the school organisation code in respect of presumption against the closure of rural schools. In health, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for health continues to work closely with rural areas to tackle the very real issues that are faced by services in remote and rural areas, and the challenges that Eluned Morgan set out in recruiting staff to work in those localities.

Dirprwy Lywydd, let me be clear that we are addressing the specific needs of public services across rural Wales. It’s clear that the benefits of the European Union, particularly through single market access, high social and environmental standards, and significant levels of funding, cannot be easily maintained after we leave the European Union, and that there are big challenges for rural Wales. We will work with our rural communities to help them to face those together.

By contrast, the only contribution to Welsh agriculture from the movers of the motion here will be the industrial-scale manufacturing of pie in the sky, but if the future was left to them then the taste of that pie for people in rural Wales will be very bitter indeed.

Thank you very much. I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I enjoyed the colourful speech from the finance Secretary, but I don’t think it took us a great deal further forward in this debate. What surprises me about Plaid Cymru is that, as a nationalist party, they are afraid of having decision taking devolved from Brussels to Cardiff. I would have thought the first thing that a nationalist party would want is the power to take their own decisions and make the laws that govern their country, and so Plaid Cymru puts itself in the opposite camp: they’re opposed to the principles of nationalism as they apply in our own country.

I, personally, am not afraid of having the responsibility that goes with the devolution of power in this respect, because, generally speaking, decisions are better made at a local level than further up, especially if they’re made further up by unelected technocrats, which was not put into the motion as a term of abuse at all, but merely a statement of fact. The Commission of the European Union is appointed, and the decision-making processes in the European Union are obscure. I’ve been a member of the Council of Ministers: I was the internal market—[Interruption.] I was the internal market Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry 25 years ago. I’ve seen the way the processes work. They’re very far from being democratic and they’re very, very difficult to influence. So, I think that, as a consequence of being able to take decisions at a local level, democracy is enhanced and people will not feel so alienated from the political system.

I thank all those who’ve taken part in the debate and, indeed, Paul Davies’s contribution contained a great deal of good sense, in particular his proposal for a scrutiny panel for rural areas in Wales and the fact that a one-size-fits-all-policy, applied by the Welsh Government, doesn’t necessarily suit rural areas in Wales.

I know Eluned Morgan goes around carrying that sign saying ‘the end of the world is nigh’, and her contribution today was no different from usual, talking about the desertification of mid Wales as a result of leaving the EU. She keeps talking about falling off a cliff. Actually, the worst we can do is fall off a kerb, because only 7 per cent of our GDP is accounted for by trade with the EU, but, of course, I don’t believe that there’s any reason for that to fall subsequently.

Yes, there will be difficulties in the process of negotiation, and there are uncertainties in the future, but I, personally, believe in our people, in the enterprise of this country and our capacity to make our way in the world as we always have done, by our own efforts and our own ingenuity.

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

Voting deferred until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I am going to proceed directly to the voting time.