The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister on the implications of the UK Government's immigration proposals for Welsh public services and the wider economy. I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I made a statement to you last week about Brexit and the damaging impact the political stasis and ongoing uncertainty is having on the economy. I am keenly aware that the uncertainty will be particularly felt by European Union citizens who have made their homes in Wales. We have always been clear that we recognise the invaluable contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and society, and that any new immigration policy should be built around that. 

I know that the result of the 2016 referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union has created considerable uncertainty for EU citizens living in Wales. I would like to be clear that we want EU nationals who have made Wales their home to stay here. They will always be welcome here. Our message to them as a Government is, 'We value your contribution to Welsh life, our economy, our public services, our communities, and you will always be welcome here.' We the Welsh Government are doing all that we can to influence the UK Government to protect the interests of EU nationals in Wales, in the UK, and to ensure that they retain the same rights as they have today.

In September 2017, we published 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People'. This explored the role of migration in Wales, focusing on migration from the European Economic Area, and analysed the potential models that the UK Government might adopt for a future migration system, and the impact that these could have in Wales. Based on that evidence, the Welsh Government has been proactive in seeking to contribute and to shape the development of migration policy in the UK, emphasising the importance and benefits of migration to Wales. I would like to have been able to say that the UK Government listened to the proposals that we put forward, and have been able to take on board the evidence that was presented, not just from Wales but across the UK. But sadly we know this is not the case.

When the UK Government published a White Paper in December last year, outlining its plans for immigration after we leave the European Union, there had been no prior engagement with the Welsh Government, despite previous assurances that this would happen. The plans in the White Paper ignore the weight of evidence presented to the Migration Advisory Committee about the negative impact on the economy of a more restrictive approach to migration. Work that we commissioned from the Wales Centre for Public Policy, which I'll refer to in more detail in a moment, has confirmed that we are right to remain deeply concerned about this approach, which is highly restrictive and will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the Welsh economy and public services.

In 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' we had proposed 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 had the ability to find a job quickly. We argued that this relatively open approach to migration should be complemented by a rigorous enforcement of legislation to prevent the exploitation of workers and the undermining of wages and conditions, whilst supporting our economy. We set out a rational framework for migration that we believed would not only meet Wales’s needs, but would work for the whole of the UK. However, in contrast to our proposals, the White Paper proposes introducing a single immigration system that will end free movement and the preferential treatment of EU citizens. Both EU and non-EU citizens who wish to come to the UK to work will normally have to apply for a visa, and those earning below a wage threshold will simply not qualify. In the White Paper, the Government suggests the threshold might be set at £30,000, although that isn't yet, thankfully, established policy.

The impact of those proposals would be substantially to reduce EU migration to the UK. The changes would not just impact what the White Paper calls 'low skilled' workers and their employers—those with intermediate skills, for example nurses, care managers and others, would likely also be affected. And I should say that we in the Welsh Government do not wish to describe workers who do work we depend upon as 'low skilled'. We believe that workers with all types of skills add value to our society and to our economy.

To address a number of concerns about the Whitehall plans for immigration, it was crucial that we gathered evidence about how serious the impacts would be. And so, the Welsh Government asked the Wales Centre for Public Policy to examine how the proposed immigration system would affect Wales. This included examining the impact of stopping overseas workers from staying in the UK for more than a year if they earn less than £30,000. The Wales centre published their report in March and, sadly, it only confirmed our fears that the UK Government’s migration proposals would do nothing to help employers and would hit the Welsh economy hard. The Government’s plans would have a real impact on both the private and the public sectors. Wales would be affected proportionally more than the UK as a whole, in terms of the number of people migrating for work, and there would be an estimated reduction to gross domestic product in Wales of between 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent over 10 years.

I am extremely concerned that such a restrictive immigration system after Brexit would lead to real skills shortages in our key economic sectors. For example, we already have a high number of EU citizens working in the food processing and the food hygiene sectors. We also have other vulnerable sectors that are facing challenges with recruitment and retention of staff, such as social care and manufacturing. Demand for care is increasing, and manufacturing is heavily reliant on workers from the EU. Restricting access for labour from the EU is not the answer. Neither is another aspect of the White Paper, which appears to have been introduced at the last minute in a vain attempt to reassure employers—the proposal to introduce a temporary workers scheme, which would enable individuals from certain countries to work in the UK for 12 months only, after which they would have to leave. Dirprwy Lywydd, is it not obvious that such a scheme is absolutely not the answer to skills and labour shortages in sectors such as social care, where what we need is to reduce, not to increase, the turnover of staff. Such a scheme would be both morally repugnant and ineffective.

By contrast, we are clear that if and when we leave the EU, we will continue to need a migration policy that allows Wales to attract the right type of workers to all areas, whether it is health, social care, tourism, higher education or food production. I do not want nurses, junior doctors, and other workers who want to work in our public services and our industries to find it more difficult and less attractive to come to Wales in the future. And this is not just about curtailing rights for those who want to come to our country, Welsh employers are quite rightly worried about whether they will be able to recruit and retain workers from the EU. The sustainability of their businesses often depends on those workers from the EU, as does the job security of the Welsh workers in those businesses.

Even for those jobs that pay salaries above the salary threshold, there will be new burdens. At present, migration from the EEA and Switzerland places very little administrative burden on workers, on employers, or on the UK Government—a passport or identity card suffices to prove EEA or Swiss nationality—and there are no direct costs of immigration. Depending on the system that's implemented and the extent of control exerted, there will be additional financial and administrative burdens on a number of levels. The risks of these costs being extended to include EEA and Swiss nationals will create a significant and costly burden on businesses and is very much a deterrent to growth within the UK. More broadly, there are a whole series of risks relating to the administration, implementation and enforcement of any new system. 

As I made clear last week, the Welsh Government's position is to campaign for a referendum and to remain within the EU. But if we are to leave, it is essential that we persuade the UK Government that their migration policy would simply compound the wilful damage they are inflicting on the Welsh and the UK economy. We need a flexible and managed approach to immigration that is fair and can contribute to our prosperity.

As the WCPP report makes clear, if the UK has to have a salary threshold at all, it should be at a far lower level, perhaps £20,000. The proposal to give Wales, like Scotland, a separate shortage occupations list, whilst welcome, is not the answer if, as at present, occupations on the list are still subject to the same salary threshold. Indeed, the whole concept of a shortage occupations list, as the MAC report of 29 May makes clear, only makes sense in a situation where there are numeric limits on the number of visas available—one malign aspect of the current system that the White Paper does not propose to replicate post Brexit.

Dirprwy Lywydd, to conclude, we must have a fair migration policy in place, one that protects EU citizens who have made Wales their home and that ensures that our future labour market needs are met. Any salary threshold should be well below £30,000. There is broad support for doing this, as well as making sure that the new system is as flexible and as user-friendly as possible. We need to ensure that Wales is still seen as an attractive place to live and to work and that we are still a welcoming nation. My officials are involved in a 12-month engagement process with the Home Office, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, where different aspects of the immigration White Paper are being discussed every month. I will continue to persist in more engagement with the Home Office, at a ministerial level and on official level, and I will continue to make sure that the best interests of Wales and of our people are fully represented.

It's very clear to me that the ability to control immigration was something that was on many people's minds when they voted to leave the European Union in June 2016. And even amongst those who voted to remain, there were still many people who had concerns about what they perceive to be unsustainable levels of immigration coming into the UK, and, of course, the people of Wales also held some of those concerns. In fact, the British social attitudes survey suggests that 86 per cent of respondents in Wales thought that immigration should be reduced, and that is a higher level than across the UK as a whole. I think that has to be at the forefront of all of our minds when we consider this issue of immigration.

Like you, my party's made it very, very clear that, whilst wanting to make sure that we've got the ability to control our own borders and have our own immigration policy, we've got to do so recognising the enormous contribution that immigration has played here in Wales and the wider UK over the years, enriching our communities and, indeed, bringing many new, different perspectives to life and helping to fuel the growth that we've seen in our economy in recent years as well. So, that's certainly not lost on us. And I was a little bit disappointed that you didn't refer to the fact that the UK Government's actually coming from the same place as the Welsh Government in terms of reflecting on the value of immigration more widely. 

Now, when the people of Wales voted to leave, one thing that they didn't vote for was to continue with the status quo and, of course, I appreciate that your party's position is one where you want to see us remain in the EU now, but, of course, when the people of Wales have been asked, they don't want that, what they actually want to see is some change. And they also want a fair immigration system, I believe. Now, your Government document, the 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' document, makes it very clear that your ambition, should the UK leave the EU, is to have a very similar system to the one that existed before. In other words, no change from the previous system in that migrants from the European Economic Area and from Switzerland who are already coming to work in the UK should still be able to access the same work opportunities and same benefit opportunities. Now, I don't think that that's what people in Wales want to see. That's why I think it weighed very heavily in people's minds in that referendum.

And I don't think, actually, that that's a fair attitude to immigration, either, because what it does is it favours those immigrants who want to come to the UK from the EEA and Switzerland and, actually, causes problems for those who want to come from outside, in the wider world. So there's no level playing field there and I don't think that that is right. So, do you accept that it's not right to treat people differently depending on where they come from? Can you also tell us whether you welcome the promises that have been made in the White Paper? I heard what you said about the need to protect people's rights, for those who are already here, and of course the White Paper makes it very clear that we want to cause no disruption to those people who have already settled here and set up a home, whether they're from the EU or elsewhere and that, on that basis, they should be allowed to continue to remain here. And, of course, that's one of the other things that the White Paper proposes: that there should be guarantees about that. 

You made reference to the £30,000 limit, and I would agree with you that there are some concerns that we hold on these benches around that limit and whether that's an appropriate limit for Wales, given the fact that, unfortunately, we are the lowest wage economy in Britain. So, do you welcome the recent announcements by the Home Secretary that they are reviewing that limit, and I expect very much that limit to come down? It may be regional—I think that's one of the other things that has been proposed as well. You made reference to the £20,000 suggestion that the Wales Centre for Public Policy has put forward; I'm not sure whether that is the right level for Wales. It may, indeed, need to be lower than that in some places, but it would be good to see some of the rationale behind that £20,000 figure that they came up with. 

You made no reference to students in your statement at all, but, obviously, one of the things that the White Paper does say—the UK Government's White Paper—is it gives a clear commitment that there'll be no limits on the number of international students who can come to study here, and I would hope very much that you would welcome that commitment too. You made no reference, either, to the exploitation that many are suffering due to modern-day slavery. And I know that both the Welsh and UK Governments have been determined to stamp out modern-day slavery here in Wales. Unfortunately, we do see evidence of it in our communities. Can you assure us that the Welsh Government is still as committed to stamping out modern-day slavery and its impacts? I want to pay tribute to the chair of the cross-party group, Joyce Watson, for her work on this. It obviously is important that we don't drop our guard on that by simply allowing the completely free movement of people. 

And one final—[Interruption.] One final—

No, there are no interventions on statements. And he's going to wind up shortly. 

And one final question, if I may. One of the reasons that we have gaps in some of our public service professions, particularly healthcare and teaching is, frankly, a failure to plan for the workforce needs of our public services over the years. And, of course, the responsibility for planning for the workforce and making sure that we've got sufficient numbers of teachers, doctors and nurses et cetera coming through the system is entirely the responsibility of the Welsh Government. Do you accept your responsibility for failing to plan for the workforce, and that that is causing a need to plug some of these shortages in our workforce because of your failure to plan adequately? Thank you.  

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.

I'd like to start with a simple message: migrants have always been welcome in Wales and this will continue to be the case in the future. You are welcome, you are valued, and Plaid Cymru will always work to protect your rights. Every week, we discuss in this Chamber risks that Brexit poses to our economy and public services, and here we are again discussing huge changes proposed by the Westminster Government, this time in the field of migration, which have the potential to cause serious harm. Having prepared in advance of this statement, I'm encouraged that the Minister has identified the same risks as I did in terms of the threat the UK Government proposals present to our economy and public services, and I would also like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Wales Centre for Public Policy in providing a thoroughly detailed analysis of the issues at hand.

I must say, however, that I am disappointed that the Minister has failed to put forward any proactive steps he intends to take. Having admitted that the UK Government has completely ignored Welsh Government concerns up until now, he says there was no prior engagement—which should be shocking, except that it isn't, because this is how Westminster has always treated Wales. It simply isn't good enough to say now that he hopes that they will listen in the future. He knows they won't; I know they won't; every sensible Member in this Chamber knows they won't. The time has come to demand more powers for Wales, Minister, so that we can take action ourselves to protect the economy rather than make repeated requests that fall on deaf ears.

Thousands of non-UK EU citizens are directly employed in the Welsh NHS and spend their working lives looking after the health of people living in Wales and we are extremely grateful to them for their efforts. The Welsh NHS is facing the frightening prospect of being sold off by the UK Government on one hand, and seeing its potential workforce atrophied on the other. Of course, both eventualities could be avoided if we were to have a referendum and decide to remain in the EU, which is, of course, the cause that Plaid Cymru supports.

Migrant workers are also over-represented in the social care sector, which is a huge concern, as demographic changes mean that the ratio of older people compared to younger workers will increase, meaning we're potentially looking at a situation where there will be more people requiring care and fewer people of working age there to support them, which is a serious concern.

Minister, Plaid Cymru believes that education visas should not form part of any immigration quotas so that our universities aren't disadvantaged. Welsh Government should, therefore, obtain powers over immigration rules for academic staff and students. Other parts of the Welsh economy, especially manufacturing, catering and the food and drink sector, are heavily reliant on migrant workers and we will be looking to Welsh Government for assurances that they're taking all appropriate steps to protect their interests.

Plaid Cymru disagrees with the Welsh Labour Government that free movement should come to an end. Free movement is morally right and makes economic sense. However, if the UK Government does end it, I agree with the Minister that the proposed £30,000 income threshold should not apply to Wales, and I, at least, am glad to hear agreement on that on all sides of the Chamber, since lower average wages here means we will not be able to attract the workers we need. Nurses, junior doctors, vets and many others will find it much more difficult to come to Wales unless these proposals are dropped. We want a Wales that welcomes people of all backgrounds, not just those fortunate enough to afford it. In terms of what Plaid Cymru would like to see, first of all, Welsh Government should be calling for the devolution of immigration policy so that we can be in control of setting quotas that make the most sense for our economy. And, finally, we should certainly be in control of our population share of UK immigration, which is 5 per cent, and should also have the flexibility to increase this with a percentage variable if our economy requires it, or if our population is growing too slowly. Will you now support Plaid Cymru in calling for this, Minister?

I would also call on Welsh Government to create a skill shortage occupation register to identify where we have skill gaps now, while also working out where they are likely to arise in different sectors, with particular emphasis being given to ensuring that our health and social care services have access to the staff they need. Where the shortages are severe, Welsh Government should put plans in place immediately to train additional workers domestically to prevent damaging shortfalls in the future. Will the Minister finally commit to doing this?

I thank the Member for, in particular, the way in which she started her question with the welcome to migrants from the European Union. It's important, in difficult times such as these are, for that to be repeated as often as possible in this Chamber, so that people have the reassurance of our commitment to their well-being and their welcome in Wales. 

She asked what steps the Welsh Government is taking in relation to this. There are a number of specific steps that we have taken and are taking. The kind of policies described in 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' mostly could be delivered even in the context of remaining as a member of the European Union, so that's a contribution to the policy debate that we feel still carries weight and still merits reflection and consideration. 

We gave evidence, as she knows, to the Migration Advisory Committee specifically in relation to the point that she raised towards the end of her questions around the arrangements in Wales for occupations for which there is a particular shortage. We gave evidence in relation to social care, food production, where dependence on the vets trained in the European Union is very, very high, manufacturing, higher education and the health service and, indeed, some other sectors. We gave that evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee and she will also know that the MAC report of about a week or so ago recommended, in principle, a shortage occupation list for Wales. It took on board the points we made in particular around vets in the food production sector, but recognised that some of these shortages are felt right across the UK, and therefore, for the time being at least, have decided to amend the UK or the England-and-Wales shortage occupation list. We obviously welcome the prospect of a separate shortage occupation list for Wales, but the truth of the matter is that, actually, that isn't the principal solution to the challenges that we face. The principal solution is looking at a migration policy that reflects the different salary need and different skills needs in the Welsh economy. So, whilst it's a thing to welcome, I think we need to be cautious about simply looking at separate administrative arrangements, when, actually, what we want is substantive change that impacts the Welsh economy.

We've funded, through the European Union transition fund, as she may know, the EU citizens immigration advice service, which helps, particularly, EU citizens who are vulnerable, who may be elderly or living alone, or are in other ways difficult to reach, as it were, through more conventional means. It provides a specific advice service to those individuals and a broadly based public awareness campaign of their rights as EU citizens. The Welsh Government is also undertaking a co-ordination exercise so that the various organisations in Wales that have been commissioned to provide advice services of that sort, either funded by ourselves or by the UK Government, are working together collaboratively in a way that avoids duplication and makes sure that gaps are avoided wherever that is possible. And that forum, we hope, will meet regularly to ensure co-ordination of that advice and support for EU citizens across Wales.

As I mentioned also in my statement, we have been lobbying, both at a ministerial and an official level, in terms of individual ministerial meetings, but also round-tables at which the Home Office and other devolved administrations are represented. We will continue to do that and we will do that based upon an evidential base, which is where we have—where we've been able to move the UK Government's position in the area of Brexit, it has been by tenacious advocates of an evidenced position, and that will continue, we hope, in relation to migration as well. Many of the advances we have achieved in relation to this area have been done in conjunction with the SNP Government in Scotland, and the area of migration is one where we have got a number of shared interests and concerns, even though, perhaps, the destination that both Governments might seek from this policy objective may be different.

Could I just say to the Minister that the concerns that he's outlined today in this welcome update and statement are echoed by many of those feelings that he will have heard from the European advisory group, those stakeholders that represent industry, that represent the third sector, that represent a wide cross-section of Welsh society and act as an expert sounding board for Welsh Government? So, this is not coming out of the blue, neither was it coming out of the blue when the round-table was convened about two months ago, I think it was, in Cathays Park, when the UK Government sent their advisers to come and listen to Welsh concerns, and we expressed those Welsh concerns, as was stated here, around the £30,000 arbitrary figure, around the issue of what was termed—that horrible phrase—'low-skilled work' and the impact that that would have on things such as the social care sector, where we had many—the Welsh Government's own analysis that was undertaken over the winter and the spring actually showed the extent of exposure of the care sector in Wales, both domiciliary and residential care, to these very proposals.

But also, what does concern me in the statement today is what seems to be something of a tin ear from the UK Government. We see very clearly that Welsh Government has put forward some very constructive, tangible, meaningful suggestions of how Welsh needs, in terms of immigration—not departing a million miles from what the UK Government is trying to do, not destroying their proposals, but actually looking for some flexibility that would reflect, in the national scheme, the Welsh needs. But there's been a tin ear to it, nothing has been taken on, and that is very disappointing, I have to say. It does not bode well for discussions around the shared prosperity fund, which we're all waiting to hear outcomes on as well.

So, a couple of questions, Minister. One is: could I urge him not to give up the argument, the discussion with UK Ministers? Because on some of these areas that are not bolted down, such as the £30,000 limit, if we keep on pushing, perhaps that tin ear will crumble and we will have some leeway on that. Because we do need a UK national scheme, not a scheme for here, a scheme for there, a scheme for everywhere else; we need a UK national scheme that can reflect what the devolved Governments are asking for.

Could I also ask what does this mean, going forward, in terms of the discussions around reforms of UK inter-ministerial, inter-governmental arrangements? Because this tin ear approach from the UK Government surely, again, doesn't bode well, not simply in terms of the shared prosperity fund, but general aspects to do with future trade discussions on a wide range of things. Surely, they actually have to listen to what Scotland and Northern Ireland and what Wales are saying. We have vested interests. There are some, I appreciate, who will say this is the equivalent, in a sense, of what I've heard some ardent Brexiteers argue about the Welsh lamb sector, which is, 'There's no answer to it. If we go into a 'no deal' situation, Welsh lamb will be trashed, quite simply. But, hey, you know, it's a price worth paying.' We seem to be in a similar situation here, with the UK Government saying, 'Well, we understand your concerns, but we're not going to listen to you.' So, we need to get beyond that. What does this mean for those inter-governmental relations?

So, those two questions: will you continue to actually push the arguments on this and, secondly, what's the read-through of this for future inter-governmental relations?

I thank the Member for those questions. I can give him a categorical response to his first question: that I will continue to and the Welsh Government will continue to press this case with UK Government. He's right to say that, in the publication of the White Paper, they have not listened to the position we were advocating—indeed, in relation to salary levels, but also in relation to that 12-month temporary workers scheme and the very idea of having an EEA and non-EEA integrated scheme, which obviously goes to the heart of—. We have always advocated a differentiated scheme, which enables a closer alignment with our partners in the European Union.

On the point that he makes—and I should have acknowledged this in Delyth Jewell's question as well—about this question of a kind of spatial dimension, if you like, a Wales-specific dimension, we would prefer to see a scheme that reflects the needs of the UK economy at large, recognising how integrated in particular the Wales economy is in parts of the English economy specifically. But I should be absolutely clear; if we do not end up with a scheme like that, we will be pressing for a spatial dimension in recognition of arrangements that work for Wales. But the truth of the matter is, for example on the question of the salary level, actually, £30,000 doesn't work for really any part of the UK apart from the the south-east of England. So, actually, we have much more in common with other parts of the UK apart from the south-east of England.

On that second question that he raised, about the inter-governmental relations and what this tells us about that, I think it does tell us something quite important about that, which is to say the world in which we can simply regard things as reserved or devolved is being left behind by Brexit. What is increasingly clear is that in a number of these areas we have common interests regardless of whether the constitutional settlement tells us that a matter is reserved or devolved. So, migration cuts right through that, doesn't it, as we've been discussing today. The delivery of the health service, the delivery of social care, the delivery of higher education depends, to a significant extent, on the migration policy. So, it's not possible, in a sense, to divorce those two questions, and I think that goes to the heart of how we need to take forward the discussions we're having in relation to the inter-governmental review, for example, one that recognises that whereas we might not expect, within the constitutional realities that we face, that we have a veto over those issues, that we should always be seeking, as four parts of the United Kingdom—we should always be seeking, at least, a shared understanding of how these policies should operate in all four parts of the UK. That has not been the case to date in relation to migration, but we will continue to press the case clearly and hard on behalf of Wales.

Counsel General, is it not true that the whole of your statement confirms to this establishment and to the people of Wales that the Welsh Government is committed to an open-door policy on immigration? It matters not how you dress it up with references such as lowering the salary base of the UK Government White Paper proposals or simply not curtailing the rights of EU workers. The full thrust of this document is that this Government, this Welsh Government, wants mass immigration to carry on. And let's define this business of immigration. We have never, none of us in either of the two parties I've ever represented, talked about no immigration. We've only ever talked about mass immigration: the sort of mass immigration that allows exploitation of immigrants coming into the country, the sort of mass immigration that allows people to come into this country who have no opportunity or possibility of having a job, the sort of mass immigration that allows people who have only criminal desires to come into this country. That is what we're talking about—mass immigration, not immigration per se. We've always argued that we should have the people that we need to come into this country to be allowed to come into this country.

By your own statement, Counsel General, you say that a salary base of £30,000 will affect Wales more than the rest of the UK. Isn't this a stark admission that the oversupply of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, which has occurred in Wales since the extension of the EU countries that have unrestricted access to our labour market, has contributed to keeping the salaries of the indigenous Welsh workforce at an unacceptably low level? Indeed, your statement reeks of low salaries, and you also totally ignore the fact that we still have 68,000 unemployed people in Wales, most in low-skilled areas.

Again in this document you argue against an immigration system that will end free movement and preferential treatment of UK citizens. Counsel General, is that not yet again a stark admission that your Government is against any restrictions on economic migrants, whether the economy needs them or not? You talk about allowing migrants in if they have a job, or will get a job in the near future. Can you please explain to us how on earth this would be monitored? And how would you go about deporting those who did not find work? Quite a harrowing situation.

You cannot deny, Counsel General—. I'm sorry. At the beginning of this statement you talked about upholding the rights of domiciled EU citizens. The UK Government has given an unequivocal guarantee that their rights would be protected, but is it not true that it is the European Union that is refusing to give those same rights to UK citizens living in the EU, and only that is in dispute? Yet again, the Counsel General brings up that oft-quoted mantra that we need foreign doctors and nurses and care workers to run our health service. Well, the truth is most of these come from third-world countries, not the EU, and what an indictment that is. It is because of the decision by the Blair Government to cut 50 per cent of doctor and nurse training places that we still need to plunder these third-world economies for their much-needed clinicians.

You cannot deny, Counsel General, that the whole of this document is testimony to a Government in denial. In denial over the overwhelming evidence that the Welsh people want an end to mass immigration, in denial at the referendum result, in denial at the latest European election result—in fact, in denial about just about everything the Welsh electorate has voted for over the last five years.

Lastly, Counsel General, you say there is broad support for your proposals. Could you please clarify where that broad support comes from? It may be the case in this place but it certainly is not true for the people of Wales outside this institution. But of course it appears their opinion either doesn't matter, or is simply to be read as being based on ignorance.

Counsel General, you'll notice that we are over time as well, so perhaps you'll just take the one question.

I'll keep this brief, Dirprwy Lywydd. I suggest to the Member that, rather than spend his time preparing his dog-whistle rhetoric masquerading as a question, he might spend a little more time listening to the statement and the contributions in the Chamber before, which utterly refute the pejorative and discriminatory rhetoric that he's indulged in for the last five minutes.

Thank you very much.