So, we do have problems with the world of work, which today is something of a minefield. Many of today's jobs are just a job, and do not really qualify as being what we would have termed 40 years ago as being a job with prospects. So, I wholeheartedly endorse the committee's recommendation 12, which calls on the Welsh Government to work with employers in the foundational sectors to pilot job ladders within firms to improve career progression within those companies.

Now, I've had quite a lot of jobs in my time—at least 35 of them, when I started totting them up—several of which I was actually sacked from, you may be surprised to hear, or not. But it is disheartening to do a job to the best of your ability and to gradually realise that there is actually no obvious career progression available, however well you perform at the job. The only incentive is to actually keep the job itself, and, of course, in an economy with stagnant wages there is no guarantee that your wage is even going to keep up with inflation. It often annoyed me that managers were brought in from outside companies to manage a work team with no knowledge of the work practices that were going on. I would always favour people being promoted from within the team, wherever possible.

One of the problems we have today is that there are simply too many people entering the job market. This means that wages are kept low and there is no incentive for a company to invest in its own workforce. That lack of investment in its own staff is a key reason why productivity today is worse in the UK than in, for example, Germany. Of course, from our viewpoint in UKIP, the elephant in the room is immigration. If you have a system that allows for hundreds of thousands of immigrants to enter your country every year, then you are allowing employers the opportunity to keep hiring cheap labour. It creates an employers' market. These are the simple rules of supply and demand as applied to the job market.

Of course, the left-wing parties won't agree with me that immigration has any adverse effect upon workers' wages and upon workers' conditions and career progression. I will have to beg to differ with them quite strongly on that point. What we can perhaps agree on is the need for companies to provide a good structure for career progression and agree that the Welsh Government must do what they can to help provide this outcome. So, I agree that we can use things like Welsh Government funding and Welsh Government contracts as a carrot to incentivise companies to foster this kind of job ladder at their firms.

Now, with regard to the subject of Welsh Government and public sector contracts, we do have to be wary of certain loopholes that companies can achieve to get around the rules. For instance, the Welsh Government can bring in rules regarding procurement, as we advocate in recommendation 14, but we have to ensure that the Government looks not just at the principal contractor on a job, and what their employment practices are, but also at the practices of the various subcontractors that the principal contractor brings in to do the actual work. If we don't thoroughly go down the supply chain and look at this properly, then you can have principal contractors crowing at how well they are treating their workers, but knowing full well that their subcontractors have people on zero-hours contracts, for instance.

I remember the old Investors in People certificates that companies used to get in the 1990s and put in a frame cupboard on the wall. It made me laugh when I looked at those certificates at a couple of places I worked at who were really bad employers. So, we have to ensure that getting some kind of Welsh Government mark as being a good employer is not just a fig leaf covering up all sorts of bad practices underneath.

Recommendation 23, which relates to the devolution of universal credit—Siân Gwenllian referred a lot to this in her response, and I broadly agree with her. Now, in UKIP we haven't supported the devolution of welfare payments, or, as Siân calls it, the devolution of the administration of welfare. But we have agreed that the Welsh Government should now publish an analysis of the benefits and risks of this so at least we can have an argument with all the facts transparently before us. This recommendation wasn't saying that we should agree to devolve welfare or the committee would never have agreed to it. It was just a call for the provision of some evidence.

The Welsh Government Ministers have stated in the Chamber in the past that the reason that they opposed the devolution of welfare was because Wales would lose out financially. Plaid have disputed this aspect of their argument. The Welsh Government position now appears to have changed, and they don't mention the financial argument anymore. It's all highly mysterious. I repeat the advice of our recommendation 23, that the Welsh Government now needs to provide us with a benefit and risk analysis to back up what the Ministers have said in the past. Diolch yn fawr iawn.