9. 8. UKIP Wales Debate: Brexit and Rural Communities

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:42 pm on 19 July 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Neil Hamilton Mr Neil Hamilton UKIP 4:42, 19 July 2017

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?