I thank Darren Millar for some of those questions. I accept that for some people, perhaps many people, the question of migration was a key factor in their decision to vote in the way that they did in 2016. And I also accept that it is important for us to address people's perceptions in relation to migration. But part of the process of addressing those perceptions surely is to tether those perceptions to the realities on the ground, rather than simply reinforce perceptions that we all know to be false. That is part of the task that we should set ourselves as an Assembly in all parties—not simply to accept that people have a set of perceptions, but to engage with people and make the case for why those perceptions are, we know, based upon misapprehensions in many cases. 

We know that public services in Wales—many public services, many economic sectors have a significant reliance on migrants from the European Union. There's no point pretending that isn't the case. So, we need to articulate that with people. We need to articulate the risks to people in food production businesses for their employment and their future well-being of these changes. We need to engage with people and articulate those views, not simply reflect that perception back at people. We need to say to people that people moving to Wales from the European Union are less likely to be on benefits than people who are living here anyway, they're more likely to be in work, their contribution to the taxes gathered by the UK Government is beneficial, they have a broadly positive impact on public finances, that high levels of immigration have a positive impact on productivity, on innovation. These are fundamental parts of the debate, which was not had, and I think it's important to recognise that, whilst perception is one thing, surely what we should be engaging with is the reality and explaining to people what the consequences are of just simply reflecting their perceptions back at them. These are complex questions, but we have to base our discussions on the facts, not simply on perceptions.  

He invited me to congratulate the UK Government on its approach. I'm going to decline that invitation, and the reason I'm going to do that is—. Take one example, of the settled status scheme. That is not the kind of scheme a Government that wanted to signal a commitment to EU citizens' well-being in the UK would put in place: a scheme that charges people to establish their right to stay in the UK—people who've been living here, in many cases, for many, many years, who've brought up families here. [Interruption.] Well, there's no charge—there never should have been a charge. It was dropped by the Government, but it was frankly a disgrace that people were being asked to pay it in the first place. A scheme that—. If you are living in Wales, there is only one centre in Wales, in Caerphilly, where, if you happen not to have an Android phone, you cannot upload documents that are required in order for you to get settled status. That is not the action of a Government seeking to make sure that people at large are able to qualify easily or without stress for this scheme.There are people, we know—. The proposals that the Government has on a 'no deal' basis are even more draconian, so these are not measures a Government would take if it were seeking to embrace the contribution of EU citizens to Wales and to the broader UK. 

You talked about—. The Member talked in his question about managed migration. 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' describes a version of a migration policy that is much more closely linked to employment—whether you have a job or the ability to have a job. And I welcome his acknowledgement of the importance of tackling exploitation—absolutely at the heart of that policy document, and I'm glad to hear him raise that and his commitment to that in the Chamber. 

I welcome the possibility—indeed, I hope the probability—that the £30,000 figure will be discarded. It does not work for Wales; £20,000 is a better figure. Indeed, we've advocated for that with the UK Government and I would invite them to bring forward changes at an early opportunity to put employers' minds at rest. I welcome the reference he made to students. What I would say is that, had the UK Government engaged better with the devolved administrations, it would have designed a scheme better reflecting the needs of the devolved administrations in relation to higher education. The Scottish system, for example, has four-year degrees as standard. That wasn't reflected in the original scheme. So, I would encourage the UK Government in the weeks and months ahead to engage in a way that is much better than they engaged in the preparation of the White Paper.

Ultimately, this is a question of the extent to which we are prepared to reflect people's anxieties and concerns or to explain and discuss this vitally important policy area on the basis of facts, and I would encourage the party opposite to engage on that basis, as I intend to do.