Thank you, First Minister. Now a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on Brexit and fair movement of people. Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, two weeks ago we published ‘Brexit and Fair Movement of People’, the latest in a series of policy documents examining in detail the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union. In our document, we explore the role of migration in Wales, focusing on migration from Europe. We analyse the potential models that the UK Government might adopt for a future migration system, and we consider what impact these could have in Wales.

We propose a flexible but managed approach to migration, where people from Europe would be able to move to the UK if they had a prior job offer, or if they have the ability to find a job quickly. Coupled with this, there needs to be stronger enforcement of legislation to tackle exploitation of workers.

Llywydd, rydym ni wedi cyhoeddi'r ddogfen hon i roi mynegiant eglur, sy’n seiliedig ar dystiolaeth, o fuddiannau Cymru, er lles ein pobl a'n heconomi. Gyda 18 mis yn unig ar ôl tan y dyddiad y bydd y DU yn ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, nid yw Llywodraeth y DU wedi nodi ei chynigion hyd yn hyn ynglŷn â sut y bydd mudo o Ewrop i'r DU yn cael ei reoli yn y dyfodol. Amserwyd ein dogfen i sicrhau bod barn a buddiannau Cymru yn hysbys ac yn ddealladwy yn y drafodaeth honno. A, Llywydd, mae'r safbwyntiau hyn yn bwysig.

Mae’n ofid i gyflogwyr yng Nghymru a fyddan nhw yn gallu recriwtio a chadw gweithwyr o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae cynaliadwyedd eu busnesau yn dibynnu’n aml ar y gweithwyr hynny o'r UE, yn union fel y mae diogelwch swyddi gweithwyr Cymru yn yr union fusnesau hynny. A, Llywydd, maen nhw’n iawn i ofidio, o ystyried y cynnydd diweddar a welwn yn nifer dinasyddion yr UE sy'n ymadael â’r Deyrnas Unedig. Mae'r ystadegau diweddaraf ar fudo, a gyhoeddwyd ym mis Awst, yn dangos bod mudiad net wedi gostwng ar gyfradd o 81,000 o bobl o'i gymharu â'r flwyddyn flaenorol, a bod dwy ran o dair o hynnny yn sgil gostyngiad ym mudo net yr UE. Cafodd hyn ei achosi gan gynnydd yn nifer y bobl sy'n gadael y Deyrnas Unedig, yn arbennig felly o wledydd a ymunodd â'r UE yn 2004. Nawr, gallasai Llywodraeth y DU fod wedi rhoi gwarant unochrog o hawliau i ddinasyddion tebyg o’r UE sydd yn y DU. Er mawr siom, ni wnaeth hynny. Nid oes rhyfedd fod dinasyddion yr UE yn gadael y Deyrnas Unedig pan nad yw Llywodraeth y DU wedi cymryd y camau angenrheidiol i greu’r ymdeimlad eu bod yn cael eu gwerthfawrogi a bod croeso iddyn nhw yma.

Yng Nghymru, rydym yn dathlu'r cyfraniad y mae dinasyddion yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn ei wneud i economi a chymdeithas Cymru, a'r ffaith bod llawer o ddinasyddion yr UE wedi dewis adeiladu bywyd iddyn nhw eu hunain yma yng Nghymru. A, Llywydd, oherwydd bod y mewnfudo hwnnw yn effeithio'n uniongyrchol ar lawer o'n cyfrifoldebau datganoledig, staffio ein gwasanaeth iechyd a'n prifysgolion a llwyddiant ein heconomi, dyna’r rheswm dros gyhoeddi ein papur. Mae'r dadansoddiad a'r dystiolaeth yn ein dogfen yn dangos yn glir bwysigrwydd dinasyddion yr UE i weithlu Cymru. Yma yng Nghymru, mae 7 y cant o feddygon y GIG, 5 y cant o weithwyr y diwydiant twristiaeth, 27 y cant o weithwyr mewn gweithgynhyrchu bwyd a diod a 7 y cant o'n staff prifysgol i gyd yn dod o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Dyna pam mai ein blaenoriaeth ni yw system fewnfudo yn y DU sy'n cefnogi ein huchelgais o gyfranogiad llawn a dilyffethair yn y farchnad sengl—marchnad o 500 miliwn o bobl, yn rhydd o rwystrau tariff a rhwystrau nad ydynt yn rhai tariff, sy'n hanfodol bwysig i fusnesau a swyddi ledled Cymru. Ni fydd yr uchelgais hwnnw’n bosibl oni bai i’n system fudo fod yn ddigon hyblyg yn y dyfodol i ganiatáu i bobl symud, at ddibenion cyflogaeth, rhwng y DU a'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Hwn, yn anad dim, yw’r rheswm y credwn y dylai ein perthynas arbennig ag Ewrop yn y dyfodol gynnwys dull gwahaniaethol a ffafriol o ymdrin â mewnfudo o ran trigolion yr Ardal Economaidd Ewropeaidd a Swistir, gan gadw’r ardal deithio gyffredin â Gweriniaeth Iwerddon a gweddill ynysoedd Prydain. Ac rydym yn croesawu’r ymrwymiadau o du Llywodraeth y DU a'r Undeb Ewropeaidd y dylid cadw'r man teithio gyffredin.

Llywydd, gadewch i mi fod yn gwbl eglur : nid ydym yn credu bod system sydd wedi ei seilio ar dargedau mudo net mympwyol o fudd i Gymru, nac o fudd i weddill y DU ychwaith. Mae system o'r fath yn arwain at ffolineb cyfrif myfyrwyr yn y targed mudo net, yn seiliedig ar yr hyn y gwyddom bellach sydd yn amcangyfrif wedi ei orbwysleisio’n fawr iawn o nifer y myfyrwyr sy'n aros y tu hwnt i gyfnod eu fisâu. Rydym wedi dweud yn gyson nad ydym yn cytuno â'r polisi hwn, ac mae ein dogfen tegwch o ran symudiad pobl yn nodi'r dystiolaeth a'r dadansoddiad sy'n ein harwain at wrthwynebu’r dull o gyfyngu ar niferoedd a sectorau o ran mewnfudo o'r UE a gweddill yr AEE. Ond os bydd Llywodraeth y DU yn dewis llwybr tebyg i hwnnw, bydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn pwyso, fel y nodwyd gennym yn ein dogfen, am gwota mudo llawn a theg yng Nghymru er mwyn i ni allu pennu ein blaenoriaethau o ran mudo i Gymru. Mae ein tystiolaeth yn dangos bod y sectorau yng Nghymru sy'n ddibynnol ar weithwyr mudol yn wahanol i'r rhai yng ngweddill y DU. Mae yna berygl mawr na fyddai ein hanghenion mudo ni yn cael sylw pan fyddan nhw, er enghraifft, yn cael eu gosod yn erbyn y galw yn ne-ddwyrain Lloegr.

Yn awr, Llywydd, wrth gwrs, rydym yn sylweddoli bod llawer o bobl yng Nghymru adeg y refferendwm yn pryderu am rai agweddau ar fewnfudo a’r hyn y gallai hynny ei olygu i'w cymunedau nhw, o ran rhagolygon eu cyflogaeth ac o ran cyflogau ac amodau gwaith. Credwn y bydd mwy o gysylltiad rhwng mudo a chyflogaeth yn helpu i liniaru'r pryderon hynny a chreu hinsawdd lle gall y ffeithiau gael gwrandawiad, oherwydd, Llywydd, mae’r ffeithiau hynny a'r dystiolaeth yr ydym wedi ei nodi yn amlwg yn dangos mai cadarnhaol yw effaith gyffredinol mudo yma yn Nghymru. Mae'r Sefydliad Astudiaethau Cyllid, er enghraifft, yn dweud bod mudo yn creu budd net i gyllid cyhoeddus. Mae data gan yr Adran Gwaith a Phensiynau ei hunan yn dangos bod 4 y cant o fewnfudwyr o’r UE o oedran gwaith yng Nghymru yn hawlio budd-daliadau oedran gwaith, o'i gymharu â 17 y cant o’r rhai sydd wedi eu geni yn y DU.

Llywydd, mae hi hefyd yn ffaith, ar ôl wyth mlynedd o lymder gyda pholisïau diffygiol ac ofer, fod gormod o lawer o ddinasyddion Cymru wedi colli camau diogelwch cyfunol y wladwriaeth yn sgil toriadau i gymorth cyfreithiol, ymosodiadau ar undebau llafur a gorfodaeth lem y system fudd-daliadau sy'n fythol grebachu. Pa ryfedd fod y rhai y mae eu hamgylchiadau beunyddiol mor enbydus yn cynnwys camfanteisio yn y gweithle at eu hofnau ynglŷn â’r dyfodol? Mae ein papur ni yn mynd i'r afael â'r mater hwn ar ei ben, gan hefyd herio'r syniad peryglus mai mewnfudo sy’n gyfrifol amdano mewn rhyw ffordd. Mae camfanteisio yn cael ei achosi gan arferion cyflogaeth diegwyddor, nid gan fewnfudo, ond mae gweithwyr mudol yn arbennig o agored i gyfryngau camfanteisio—llety ynghlwm â gwaith, cludiant ynghlwm â gwaith, hunan-gyflogaeth ffals ac yn y blaen—sy'n arwain wedyn at y risg o fanteisio ar eraill. Mae'r dystiolaeth a gyflwynwyd gennym yn dangos nad yw Llywodraeth y DU, ers 2010, wedi gwneud digon i orfodi'r deddfau sydd wedi eu bwriadu i warchod gweithwyr rhag dioddef camfanteisio. Mae’r cyfrifoldeb arnyn nhw i sicrhau bod yr holl weithwyr yn ymwybodol o'u hawliau, a bod ganddyn nhw gefnogaeth yr undebau llafur, fel y gall y gweithwyr hynny adnabod camfanteisio a chymryd camau pan fydd yn digwydd iddyn nhw, heb ofni’r canlyniadau.

Ac mae rhagor y gallwn ninnau yn Llywodraeth Cymru ei wneud i adeiladu ymhellach ar ein polisïau caffael moesegol, drwy wneud Llywodraeth Cymru ei hunan a GIG Cymru yn gyflogwyr cyflog byw a phasio Deddf yr Undebau Llafur (Cymru) 2017. Byddwn yn parhau i ddod o hyd i ffyrdd, gan weithio gyda phartneriaid yr undebau llafur ac eraill, i nodi a mynd i'r afael â chamfanteisio ar weithwyr a chreu mwy o gydymffurfiaeth ymysg cyflogwyr yng Nghymru.

Felly, Llywydd, rydym yn cynnig system deg a realistig ar gyfer mudo rhwng yr Undeb Ewropeaidd a'r Deyrnas Unedig. Nid yn unig y bydd hynny’n gyfiawn i Gymru, ond, yn ein barn ni, yn gyfiawn i'r DU. Ac yn dyngedfennol, mae hyn yn sail adeiladol ar gyfer trafod telerau'r DU gyda'r UE-27. Rydym yn gobeithio, wrth gwrs, y bydd Llywodraeth y DU yn ystyried ein cynigion yn ddifrifol, ac edrychaf ymlaen at glywed barn Aelodau'r Cynulliad y prynhawn yma.

I’ll avoid an attempt to enter into a debate on economics; I’ll wait for the next economy debate in order to give in to that temptation. But as a UK Government Minister said last week, we’ll have an immigration system

‘that suits the UK, not slamming the door—but welcoming the talent we need, from the EU and around the world. Of course we will make sure that business gets the skills it needs, but business will no longer be able to use immigration as an excuse not to invest in the young people of this country.’

And they’ve said that they’ll be setting out their initial proposals for a new immigration system in the autumn of this year.

Given, as I referred earlier that confirmation by the Wales Office that there’s been a significant amount of engagement with officials in Welsh Government and officials in the UK Government—and I stress UK Government and not just the Wales Office—over the summer, as to what, other than this paper, has been subject to discussions, what developments, if any, have resulted thus far from that?

Like you, we support action to ensure payment of the minimum wage and to enforce legislation to tackle exploitation of employees wherever they come from. Much of that, clearly, is non-devolved but there’s much that might fall within areas of devolved responsibility, not least intelligence gathering. What role, or greater role, whatever the outcome of the future model of immigration adopted may be, do you feel the Welsh Government might play in taking that forward?

This statement, clearly, is around migration, not about the entirely separate issue of refugees and asylum seekers in Wales, as I know you strongly understand and believe. Will you make a clear statement, for public understanding, that that is the case and that we all support Wales becoming a nation of sanctuary—a separate matter from the issues of migration being discussed today?

You state that your proposal links migration to work and supports your ambition for full and unfettered access to the single market. However, as the Prime Minister said in January, this would, to all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all, which is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market. She said:

‘Instead, we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement’.

How, therefore, do you respond to the statements last week by the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, that Labour risks losing touch with northern Brexit voters if the party fails to crack down on freedom of movement and risks an angry backlash from northern ‘leave’ voters who may feel ignored? Although he supported ‘remain’ in the referendum, he said he was worried about Labour’s proposals to stay in the single market, stating this would almost certainly stop us controlling immigration policy. He said this would become very divisive if it looks like there’s backlash from the establishment, to almost deny the referendum result and warn against a London-centric Brexit. So, do you believe, like I do, that Wales should stand with northerners or with Londoners? Although, clearly, I have great affection for both.

You state that the UK Government could’ve provided a unilateral guarantee of rights for such EU citizens in the UK and it lamentedly failed to do so. In fact, only last Thursday, for example, UK finance Minister Philip Hammond said that Britain is very close to reaching an agreement with the EU on how to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU after it leaves the bloc. Negotiations are maybe on a four-weekly cycle, but discussion and dialogue is continuous, and fortunately the positions taken by both sides are moving towards agreement on a resolution within the so-called divorce settlement.

We share with you the recognition of the need to preserve the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the British isles, and welcome the commitments of the UK Government and the EU that the common travel area should be preserved. You say you’ve pressed for a full and fair Welsh migration quota, where you could determine your priorities for migration to Wales. Is this not completely unworkable without installing border controls at, metaphorically, Offa’s Dyke? And finally, noting of course that Schengen in the context of Ireland means there is—. Ireland and UK exclusion by choice from Schengen means that there is an external border from Ireland, if that’s what you might be saying, but internally within the UK, quotas would be impossible to enforce.

And finally, given that Wales has the lowest employment rate in Britain, and the latest figures showing an increase of 18,000 in economic inactivity to 460,000, meaning that 525,000 working-age people in Wales are currently unemployed, many of whom want to work but are facing cultural and physical barriers, after 18 years, what can the Welsh Government do differently to tackle those high levels of economic inactivity and help those people remove the barriers to work so that the skills and strengths they have to offer can also help contribute to filling the skills gap?

Well, Llywydd, let me begin by trying to find some areas of common ground with the Member. I’m very happy to put on record, as he did, that this is not a paper about asylum seekers and refugees, and the strong support of the Welsh Government to asylum and refugee policies that welcome people to Wales who have faced such awful experiences elsewhere in the world and who come here for sanctuary. Let me say as well that we are proud in Wales of our record post devolution. We have had a faster drop in economic inactivity in Wales than across the United Kingdom as a whole, and of course there is nothing in our document at all that suggests that we will not go on doing everything we can to build up the skills of people who live in Wales already, to create new opportunities for people who have been outside the workplace and who wish to return to it. But we do not for a moment align ourselves with those people who, as Mark Isherwood began, suggest that somehow immigration and the presence of people from the European Union in our midst is because employers have used that as an excuse not to invest in young people.

The employers that I have met over this summer have gone out of their way to explain to me the actions that they take, working with their local further education colleges and so on, to try and prepare people who live in their communities to take up job opportunities that are available. But even when they have done that to the maximum extent, they still need to be able to attract people from beyond their own boundaries in order to secure the continued employment of people from those local areas. Llywydd, the First Minister gave a very telling example when he introduced this paper a couple of weeks ago, of a hotel in a part of rural Wales that employs 100 people: 80 of those people come from the local community already, and 20 people come from other parts of the European Union. And the person who runs that hotel said absolutely clearly, ‘The jobs of the 80 people depend on my ability to be able to attract the 20 people to come in to support this business. If I can’t get the 20 people, then the 80 people who live here already won’t have jobs either.’ That’s why our proposals are proposals that are right for Wales, and this Government and our responsibilities are the focus, not what might be right in other parts, but what is right for Wales. And we believe that this paper, which is in the pragmatic mainstream of proposals, we believe, provides a blueprint to do exactly that.

Is there more that we can do as a Government to ensure the rights that ought to be there to protect people who come into the workplace through entry-level jobs and so on? Well, I said in my statement that there is more that we can do and intend to do, building on our success, with a code of practice on ethical employment, on the two-tier code on our social partnership model, and I can say to the Member that our actions in this area are very carefully observed and challenged where necessary in the workforce partnership council and other places where people who work with us on this agenda come to advise the Welsh Government.

Finally, in relation to the migration quota issue, let me say again, Llywydd, that is not our preferred policy. It’s absolutely set out in the document. That is not what we think would work best for Wales or the United Kingdom, but if the UK Government is determined to put migration controls ahead of the needs of the UK economy and does decide to do this by net migration quotas, then we are convinced that a system in which we have a quota for Wales will be in our best interests. It’s the policy advocated by the City of London Corporation for London and by the all-party parliamentary group on social integration at the House of Commons. It can be made to work if we have to make it work. It’s not the approach that we would choose for Wales or for the UK.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today and the publication of the fair movement of people document, which, of course, elaborates on the joint White Paper that was published between Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru recently. I, like him, perhaps in vain, look forward to a time when we can have an honest and serious debate on immigration that considers the facts and the true impact that migration has had on our community and our economy. And safe to say that Plaid Cymru again reiterates its appreciation to those who come from all over the world to contribute to Welsh communities and Welsh businesses and to Welsh public services, and they are welcome here and they are cherished here.

The model suggested in this publication would allow Wales and the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European single market, which is a vital consideration for Plaid Cymru, linking work with movement of people for EU nationals and Swiss nationals. I agree with the Cabinet Secretary, of course, that this is a pragmatic approach, and as we see the British negotiators unravel at the negotiating table in Brussels, goodness knows we need pragmatism at this crucial point. Just 18 months away from separation day and what a shambles the British Government finds itself in.

In terms of the specifics of the publication today, I’d like to ask two questions to the Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, the First Minister, I think, suggested during First Minister’s question time this afternoon that a copy of this document had been sent to the British Government, but there was a reluctance to meet with the Welsh Government to discuss it. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary can elaborate further on that—whether this is a diary issue or whether it is a case of us Welsh people knowing our place in this wonderful family of nations and how dare we suggest a way forward for the UK as a whole on a policy matter that we shouldn’t dare discuss.

But secondly—and the point of disagreement between the Cabinet Secretary and myself and between Plaid Cymru and the Government—is the question of a quota or work permit system that is regionalised or nationalised across the United Kingdom, because I think we can see, as the Cabinet Secretary himself mentioned in his statement, the trend that is happening now, because of the signal being sent out from the UK Government to the rest of the world, that we are struggling to attract the numbers of people into our economy that we need. And he mentioned in his previous answer to a previous question the work of the City of London Corporation in modelling the way that a work permit for London could operate post separation. We can well imagine, I think, with the experience that we have in Welsh politics, a situation where we get to separation day and the British Government, in its desperation to keep the City of London afloat as a global financial centre and as the only geographic bit of the UK that provides it with just enough income to sustain itself, will permit London a special status within the UK, but no-one else. Again, I go back to this. I don’t mean to gibe at unionist Members of this Chamber, but you are unionists and this is something that perhaps you need to consider over the coming period: if this is truly a family of equals and a family of nations, then it will not be acceptable, surely, for London, the one region of the UK that already gets an enormous economic and political advantage over everyone else—. The entire economic construction of the United Kingdom is based upon that one corner. If they’re allowed to have work permits of their own, and not the rest of us, that will be devastating for a country like Wales that is already approaching full employment and will not have the ability, then, to meet shortages in its public or private sectors whilst London can boom even further forward. That would be unacceptable. I’m disappointed that the Welsh Government is not modelling now, and publishing now, the impact on the Welsh economy of the London city state having preferential treatment in terms of regional work permits and not Wales. And actually, even if we were to get to a position where EEA nationals would have the right to come to the UK to work, I still believe that might not be enough to sustain the needs of the Welsh economy in terms of the skills shortages that are already now being exacerbated by the separation process that has only just begun.

So, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to take time, perhaps, to reflect a little more on publishing further information and modelling on not just how a work permit system among the nations and regions of the UK could function—. Because we don’t suggest that it can’t function; we know it functions. Every federal state you can think of—. With some exceptions, but many federal states you can think of already have different quotas and work permit systems. So, it can function—it does function—but not only that, let us not lose sight of the opportunity we have to make the case for it now, in the next 18 months, before it is too late and before, yet again, the British state sells Wales down the Swanee.

Steffan Lewis was absolutely right to start by saying that the proposals in this document are an elaboration of the basic position that we set out in the document that we published jointly between our two parties. I wanted to make sure I’d acknowledged that.

There were two specific questions that Steffan Lewis raised. Copies of our document have been sent widely to the UK Government and shared with colleagues in the Scottish Government as well. Sometimes you have to ask more than once to make sure that you get to discuss the content of these documents with people to whom you think it would be of interest. I have by no means given up the effort to secure such a discussion, both with the Home Secretary and with other Ministers in the Home Office, but also with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and if we succeed in getting a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Exiting the European Union, then I’d certainly expect to see this document on the agenda there so that it could be properly shared and discussed with the component parts of the UK.

On the second question, I don’t think we are so very far apart. It’s a question of what you think you should put first, and it still is the clear priority for this Government to have a single migration system that works for all parts of the UK, and we think we outline one that could achieve that here. If that is not to be the preferred option of the United Kingdom, then we’re very much in the same position that Steffan Lewis outlined. Of course we would not want to be in a position where the needs of the City of London were put ahead of the needs of the economies in other parts of the UK, or where a sectoral approach to quotas meant that economic needs of other parts of the economy not reflected in the nature of the Welsh economy would get preferential treatment in the way that quotas were dispersed. If we are in that position, we argue for the Welsh Government to have a quota for Wales that we could disperse.

This document is a work in progress. There is more to be done to elaborate some of the practicalities of that, and we will continue to give thought both to what’s been said this afternoon but to other things that we need to do in order to help shape the future.

Well, this is a useful document and a valuable contribution to this debate, but, from the way in which the finance Secretary and others talk about immigration and its importance to the economy, I wonder how on earth we ever managed to survive before the year 2004, when restrictions on movement for eastern European countries were substantially relaxed or removed. The fact, which is inconvenient to their argument, of course, is that, for many decades up to the millennium, average net migration into the United Kingdom was about 50,000 a year. Since 2004, the average has been 225,000 a year for net migration. Now, that is a massive annual increase over and above what we’ve experienced throughout the rest of our lifetimes. I think nobody can credibly deny that immigration on such a scale and at such a speed is bound to create stresses and strains on public services, on land use, on transport, on jobs. At the moment, we’re in a relatively benign economic period, but, when the cycle turns, as inevitably it will, perhaps things will turn again. With the collapse in the exchange rates in recent months, that has already had a decisive impact upon these net migration figures, which were last, a few months ago, at a third of a million or more—now down to 0.25 million, but they’re still at 0.25 million. When the Office for Budget Responsibility did a study only three years ago, that was the figure they chose for the long-term future for net migration into Britain. It’s a fallacy to say, as the Cabinet Secretary said in his statement, or, not in a statement, in response to somebody earlier on, I think, that immigrants make a great net contribution to economic prosperity in Britain. That can only take a short-term view. Because migrants tend to be young, they tend to be at the earning part of their lifetime and they don’t make as much use of public services, particularly health services, as when they get older, and they certainly, of course, don’t qualify for pensions. If you discount the cash flow over an immigrant’s lifetime, we know from other studies that have been done, and I referred to one earlier on in my question to the First Minister by the Office for Budget Responsibility, that 225,000 net migrants a year, that adds 0.4 per cent to GDP but also adds 0.4 per cent to our population, and so there’s no net contribution at all in GDP per capita.

So, I’m not saying that immigrants are a cost to the country over the long term, but I am also saying that they aren’t actually a measurable benefit. So, in terms of national well-being there is no argument either way. But to ignore the scale and speed of current immigration, I think, is to risk instability in politics, which we’ve seen in other parts of Europe in a rather unpleasant way, and that’s the principal reason why I believe that we do need to have a proper system of immigration control. The paradox is that, of course, we do have this for the rest of the world that isn’t part of the European Union. Now, if the argument is, as I infer from what Steffan Lewis was saying a moment ago, that immigration is good, we should have more of it, and we shouldn’t put restrictions on it from the EU, why don’t we just open the floodgates to the rest of the world? Because the same arguments that apply to Europe will apply to the rest of the world too. Europe is 450 million people, taking the United Kingdom out of it. We’ve got billions of people around the world who could come and make contributions to the British economy if we had the same system of non-control that we have within the EU extended to the rest of the world. You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re in favour of control or you are not in favour of control. If we are in favour of control from the rest of the world, why should we not extend that to the European Union in a sensible way? I’m not entirely opposed, in principle, to having regional and national quota systems if they can be made to work. The complication is, of course, that we have a shambles of an immigration control system in this country. We’ve no idea who is coming into the country or, even more so, who is leaving it, and we can’t control movements within the United Kingdom. So—[Interruption.] Well, of course it’s true; we have no means of knowing where people are. In the last census just a few years ago, well over 0.5 million more people were found than the Office for National Statistics was expecting, and the census itself is not foolproof. So, until we have administrative systems that are capable of coping with the complications that this would bring in, I need to be convinced.

But I do think that this is a valuable contribution to debate, and I do think it’s something that the United Kingdom Government should consider. If it says that this can’t be made to work and explains why, then I will be opposed to this. But, if it can be made to work, and without undermining the fundamentals of what we need to achieve by controlling our borders, which I would have thought is the very essence of nationhood, independent nationhood, being able to control and decide who comes into your own country and on what terms. Otherwise, if you open the floodgates to the rest of the world as well, by having—[Interruption.] Well—

Come on. The mask is slipping again.

No, it’s nothing to do with a mask slipping at all, Llywydd. If we’re in favour of immigration control for the rest of the world, why are we not in favour of it for Europe? Why do we want to discriminate against the rest of the world? I’m not the one who is racist. The current immigration policy that we have is a racist one, because we apply restrictions to those with different colour faces that we don’t to those who are overwhelmingly white.

Well, let me start with the final point, because I set out very specifically in my statement the reasons why we believe that our future special relationship with Europe should include a differentiated and preferential approach to immigration for EEA and Swiss nationals. We do that because of the 40-year history that we have with the European Union. It is possible—it is possible intellectually and in policy terms—to differentiate between a policy that you would wish to have in relation to those countries and the policy that you would have with the rest of the world, and we do that in our paper.

Let me say, Llywydd, that our paper does not for a moment ignore the stresses and strains that some communities feel that the scale and speed of immigration has created. We try to take that head on. We try to set out the facts of the matter. We try to explain why, in our view, people from the rest of the world make a substantial net contribution to life here in Wales. They do so economically, and I thought that the Member had to work incredibly hard to try and find an argument that tried to undermine that proposition. We’ll all be older one day, Llywydd, and not making the economic contribution we make. But, here and now, people from the European Union who are here today undoubtedly make a net contribution to our national wealth, and they do far more than that. It’s not just the economic contribution they make; it’s the contribution they make in all sorts of other ways. But we don’t ignore the anxieties that people have faced, even when you set out the facts, which is why we put such an emphasis in our paper on making sure that the protections that ought to be there for people who do live precarious economic lives and have anxieties that freedom of movement has been too easily turned into freedom to exploit—. We say that the safeguards that those people need and deserve and ought to have need to be strengthened and made more effective.

I thank the Member for what he said at the end about hoping that the UK Government responds seriously to this paper. I believe that if they do, and if they are interested in putting the needs of the United Kingdom’s economy at the very top of their list when it comes to negotiations as we leave the European Union, they will find much in here that allows them to secure that outcome.

And, finally, Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome this statement. I think it is good that it does celebrate the contribution made by European workers here in Wales. I think it’s a positive statement and, as many have said, a real, practical contribution to the debate that is going on.

Personally, I think the debate so far in Westminster does look as if the Westminster Government is putting the aim of bringing down immigration beyond the economic needs of the country, and I think that this all relates to Theresa May’s disastrous time at the Home Office, when she totally failed to bring down immigration in the way that she pledged to, and that has carried on until now. I think it would be unfortunate if we had to follow any types of quotas, but I understand why the Cabinet Secretary is putting forward the possibility of regional quotas if we did reach that situation where it was needed.

I think that the documents that the Welsh Government has produced are very valuable documents to the debate, and I think there is a lot of really interesting information in here that is very important for us to learn from. I thought one of the very important points coming out of this document is the figures that show that the vast majority of EU citizens are not young, single people, but are part of a family unit. I think it did say in there that there were more than 20,000 children resident in Welsh households where at least one parent is an EU citizen. I might declare an interest, because three of my grandchildren are in that position. But I think, you know, we are discussing the debate about Brexit and the fair movement of people largely in economic terms and, obviously, I think we have to look at the big social impact it is having on the lives of families where there is an EU member who is uncertain of the future. I wondered whether the Welsh Government is doing anything in relation to that. I don’t think it’s surprising, as the Cabinet Secretary said in his statement, that many EU citizens are now leaving the country, because they don’t feel welcome.

One of the things I wanted to ask him was about the process of producing these documents, because I know that one of the groups that have felt very strongly about all these issues are young people, and I know that, in the Eisteddfod, I think, the Cabinet Secretary made a commitment that there would be consultation with young people about these documents and about how they could fit in, and obviously the Welsh Government has a duty to consult with young people. So, I wondered if you could tell us whether young people have been involved in the production of this document. I mean, they didn’t have a chance to vote, the 16 and 17-year-olds. We hope we may be able to do something about that in the future, but, obviously, that is what the position is at the moment.

And, finally, I think it’s a very important point that the document is making, that immigration is not responsible for driving down wages; it is unscrupulous employers who do exploit vulnerable people. And so I support the commitment in the statement.

The process of producing the documents, the series of documents, is one in which we do our best to include the views and perspectives of a wide range of people who have a particular interest in this field. This document is particularly influenced by views from employers, from trade unions and from the university sector. It was discussed at the European advisory group that I chair. I know that the programme monitoring committee that Julie Morgan chairs has also contributed to the development of the suite of documents that we are producing, and I was very grateful for the chance to be able to speak at the Eisteddfod at an event chaired by Llyr Huws Gruffydd to an audience of young people and young people’s organisations about Brexit, and Carl Sargeant, my colleague, has committed to fund a series of events, with the help of Children in Wales, at which the views and perspectives of young people can be more directly fed into the process of the Welsh Government’s thinking on Brexit as a whole.

I’ll end just by echoing what Julie Morgan said: it’s just not good enough for the Government, as we were told by Mark Isherwood, to be saying now that we’re not very far off concluding an agreement on the status of people from the European Union in the future. We’re well over a year after the referendum. It would have been possible—. I was told by David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, many, many months ago that this was one of the easiest things to agree with the European Union, and here we are, all those months later, and still no agreement on the ground. That means that people who are living in families, trying to shape their lives, trying to find a future for themselves, have lived with that uncertainty, and it is no surprise that people who have skills that are highly sought after and are very mobile are deciding that they’d rather go somewhere else where the ground is firmer under their feet and they know that the welcome is properly there for them. The UK Government could and should have made sure that we were not in that position here in the United Kingdom.

Professor Jonathan Portes, the leading expert in this field in the whole of the United Kingdom, said on the day that our report was published that

‘Welsh govt immigration paper everything Home Office paper wasn't: positive, constructive, evidence-based’, and that’s why we hope that it will have an impact on the debate here in Wales, but more widely in the United Kingdom.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.