Item 8 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report, 'Changes to freedom of movement after Brexit—the implications for Wales', and I call on the Chair of that committee to move the motion, David Rees.

Motion NDM7237 David Rees

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on its Inquiry into changes to freedom of movement after Brexit—the implications for Wales, which was laid in the Table Office on 8 November 2019.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am pleased to open today’s debate and to move the motion tabled in my name on our report on changes to freedom of movement after Brexit and its implications for Wales. Let me place on record our thanks to all those who contributed to our work, particularly those EU citizens who have made Wales their new home.

Our report addresses three broad areas related to changes to the free movement of people after Brexit. They are immigration policy after Brexit, the operation of the EU settlement scheme, and the potential case for regional variations to immigration policy in the future.

We published this report in a highly uncertain policy landscape. I should also note that whilst nationality and immigration are reserved matters under the Government of Wales Act 2006, there are a number of Wales-specific proposals in the UK Government’s White Paper and the wider policy debate that merit detailed consideration by this Assembly. Furthermore, we have a duty to represent the interests of the people of Wales. This includes ensuring that the impact on devolved areas are reflected in UK policy.

Turning to our recommendations and the Welsh Government’s response, we made a total of 12 recommendations and I am pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted 11 in full, and one in principle. I do acknowledge the reason provided in the Welsh Government's response as to why they could only accept in principle.  

In addition to our recommendations, we make a number of conclusions. These conclusions formed the basis of our committee’s submission to the Home Office, and largely concern the operation of the EU settlement scheme, which I will cover in more detail a little bit later. We will continue to monitor the situation in relation to the scheme and intend to press the case with the Home Secretary now that the dust has settled on the 2019 general election result.

The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union will bring about some of the biggest changes to immigration policy in decades. Crucially, it is the Government’s policy that freedom of movement will end and that a new Australian-style points-based immigration system will replace the current system.

Central to this will be the proposals for a £30,000-a-year salary threshold to be applied to most immigrants coming into the UK from the EU after Brexit. This will be in line with the current system for non-EU workers. Most of the evidence we received highlighted concerns with the proposed salary threshold. Many highlighted the fact that the vast majority of EU nationals currently living and working in Wales earn under that salary threshold, even those in medium and high-skilled roles.

Our report welcomed the fact that the migration advisory committee has been tasked with reviewing this threshold. In undertaking this review, it was clear to us that the migration advisory committee should take into account the fact that a £30,000 salary threshold would set the bar at a higher level than the average earnings in Wales. Our first set of conclusions and recommendations highlight these concerns and call on the Welsh Government to use all the means at its disposal to ensure that the threshold is reduced in order to better reflect the Welsh context. I do note that there are reports today speculating that the threshold will be either abandoned or lowered. I will await the publication of the MAC's report, which is due shortly. If those reports are accurate, I very much welcome the possibility of this change.

We also heard wide-ranging concerns about the operation of the EU settlement scheme in Wales. Our work on the EU settlement scheme was informed by an online forum and face-to-face discussions with citizens from other EU nations living in Wales and representatives of charities and organisations working with them as individuals and families.

In particular, we heard of low levels of registration in Wales compared to the other nations in the UK. The figures as of November 2019 were around 59 per cent of EU citizens in Wales had applied to the scheme, compared to 79 per cent in England, 63 per cent in Scotland, and 66 per cent in Northern Ireland. So, we are at the bottom of those levels. Concerns around the digital-by-default aspects of the scheme and the general awareness of how and where to access the advice and support were highlighted. Now, we share these concerns, and noted the views of the House of Lords' EU justice committee that the lack of physical documentation provided to citizens has clear parallels with the Windrush scandal.

There is clearly a role for both Governments to play here in providing not only advice and support to EU citizens accessing the scheme, but also in providing reassurance that their status will be secure and permanent after Brexit. It is for this reason that we call upon the Welsh Government to provide a stronger lead in signposting citizens to the package of measures it has in place to support them, and to reiterate its messages of support loudly to EU citizens here. In conveying this message, we should also be mindful that our colleagues in the European Parliament have also taken a keen interest in the rights of citizens after Brexit. Indeed, key figures in the European Parliament have repeatedly stated that the rights of EU citizens will be among their primary considerations when it comes to giving their view on whether or not to agree the UK-EU withdrawal agreement, which, if I am right, will take place next week.

And we should be fully aware, therefore, that last week, the European Parliament adopted a resolution—by 610 in favour, 29 against, and 68 abstentions, so quite a large majority—expressing wide-ranging concerns about the UK Government's approach to securing citizen's rights after Brexit. In many areas these concerns chimed with our own, including the absence of physical documentation for successful applicants, and issues surrounding accessibility of the scheme. I therefore repeat our committee's calls for these issues to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Our third central theme explored whether there is a case for different immigration rules for Wales after Brexit. We received a significant amount of evidence that highlighted the particular demographic challenges and economic needs of Wales. The challenges, particularly an ageing population, are likely to be exacerbated by the end of freedom of movement. Furthermore, it is the case that some sectors of the economy are likely to be hit harder by the end of freedom of movement than others. We did not draw a firm conclusion on whether the Welsh Government should press the case for greater control of the immigration system in Wales after Brexit. However, we would draw the attention of the Assembly to examples in other countries, most notably Canada and Australia, where such differentiation does occur.

And similarly, we agreed that the Welsh Government should undertake exploratory work on a spatially differentiated immigration policy after Brexit. This should include research on future demographic trends and the potential impact of lower levels of migration for the Welsh economy. Only then will we have the robust evidence base needed to inform future policy in this area, which is tailored to the needs of Wales. And I did note in the Welsh Government's response that the indication of a reduction in the population in the years ahead of us is something we need to reflect upon, particularly as we are an ageing population. If we have a reduction in population, it's more likely that the younger people are not going to be here.

Finally, before concluding my opening remarks, I would like to reflect upon perhaps the most important message that I took from our work in this area. We heard directly from EU citizens living in Wales about the toll that negative rhetoric around migration is having on their emotional well-being and that of their friends and families. I call upon all of my fellow Members in this Chamber and other elected representatives at all levels, from all political parities, to reflect upon the damaging effects that some of the rhetoric and language that has been used around immigration is having on the people affected. Perhaps we don't always understand the words we use and the impact it has on people. We need to be careful. We have a duty to act on behalf of these people who told us of their sense that they feel unwelcome and unwanted in our country because of the language being used, and that language being reiterated by individuals in our public life. We have a duty to lead on that. We need to ensure that these people—who are here to help and work, who are not here for any other reason—feel welcome, that they feel part of our community. They want to be part of our community. It is our job to ensure that the nation speaks in one language, and that is a welcoming language for these people. It is for that reason that I say today that we stand with you.

I therefore move the motion and ask the Members to support the report.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I thank David Rees, the Chair of the committee for the way he—well, he always conducts the committee in exemplary fashion. This was a very important inquiry, and I'm happy to support the motion and the report today.

I think David has covered the main points that struck us, but let me amplify them. I don't think they're reduced in any way by repeating. The salary threshold at £30,000 was clearly the major issue we faced and, as has been pointed out, that's considerably above the average wage level in Wales, and I too am pleased to see that this is now undergoing some review. And I think we were quite right to recommend some variation being allowed in Wales should it remain at £30,000, so that at least we could adjust it. But around the whole scheme, we did hear from employers the higher recruitment cost they may be facing, the particular difficulty in vulnerable sectors where, even if the threshold reduced a bit, they may still not be captured, such as those in social care—especially if they're part time, for instance—agri-food, hospitality. These are all vital areas to the Welsh economy.

I too noted the lower rate amongst EU citizens in Wales applying for the settled status scheme, and it's quite significantly below the other parts of the UK. And I have to say, to some extent, this does reflect my own experiences over the last year or 18 months with the Greek community in south Wales. They've raised these concerns about information and how they go about it, and many of them have been here for decades, some of them Greek Cypriots here since the 1970s. I think there was a large amount of uncertainty and anxiety, some of it misplaced, no doubt, but that lack of clarity was a real issue.

And if I could make a plug to fellow Members, Presiding Officer, that a week today, in conference room C and D, there will be a presentation on the contribution of the Greek community over the last 150 years to Cardiff in particular, so I urge Members to come along. It would certainly make, in very vivid tones, the point that David concluded on about our need to welcome immigrants as they brings us so many gifts and enrich our own cultural heritage, as well as the Greeks have in Cardiff and south Wales and, indeed, other parts of Wales in all probability.

Can I say that a points scheme, if that's where we end up, possibly would allow for more regional variation? I understand the Welsh Government is reluctant to go down the sort of scheme that would give it a lot of variation over something like the threshold, which may be difficult to administer, whereas allowing more points for immigrants coming in looking for work, and being able to settle in Wales and in particular jobs, perhaps, may be a way forward, and I think that should be considered very carefully. I appreciate the thought that's gone into that from the Welsh Government.

And also, the need for a shortage occupation list, as they will have in Scotland, I think could combine with this and start to allow us the maximum flexibility, because our economy is very different from the ones quite close to us around Bristol, and certainly around London and the Thames valley. So, I think these things are justifiably points to raise and to consider, because we're about to have a big shift in practice in terms of people from the rest of Europe that will seek to live and work in Britain and, in our case especially, in Wales. These changes have to be managed very, very carefully. They affect a lot of people, potentially—those that are already settled; their relatives have a higher propensity to come and work where they've got family connections. So, these are profoundly important points.

Whilst we are now about to go through all the realities of Brexit and the big changes, there's still a lot of scope to respond to these very justified concerns that we're getting, even at this stage, through the consultations and the inquiries. And I do welcome that the Welsh Government does respond in the correct, I would say constructive, spirit to take these points and to make suggestions, and promote some of the ones that we have that really could enhance the scheme and don't, at their heart, have any intention to undermine the practicalities of what will face us in the post-Brexit world. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

This week is my last as a member of the external affairs committee, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair, David Rees, and all other members of the committee for the welcome and friendship that I've experienced over the past year, as we have scrutinised various elements of the Welsh Government's and UK Government's plans in terms of exiting the European Union.

One aspect of the work of the committee that made an impression on me from the very outset was that, although we were taking an international overview—despite that, the impact of the policies, the legislation and the decisions do have an impact at a local level, and, in many cases, are unique and individual. This was particularly true with the inquiry that we're discussing today, namely changes to freedom of movement after Brexit.

I would like to associate myself with the comments that have already been made, in terms of thanking the individuals and institutions that contributed to our work, particularly the EU citizens who participated in our focus group.

When the 2016 referendum happened, there wasn't a huge amount of clarity as to the meaning of that vote. Many now believe that people did vote in order to reduce immigration, although there is no robust evidence that this is the case. So, it is a cause of sadness for me that we have to lose those four freedoms that can't be shared.

Freedom of movement opens horizons. People living amongst us in our communities have benefited from this freedom—people who will now see those horizons disappear. It is a remarkable and deeply sad phenomenon, but here we are.

I mentioned the focus groups that we held as a committee, and their testimony was devastating: people who have lived much of their lives in Wales who no longer feel welcome because of Government policy, because of uncertainty and because of the deeply damaging rhetoric that has poisoned debate—those demons awoken by some elements of the referendum debate. The people in the focus groups talked about this dystopian situation that was facing them, the barriers in their way to applying for settled status, the hoops they have to jump through, the anxiety about finding out you've only been awarded pre-settled status, and the Kafkaesque fact that, even if you're granted settled status, you don't get any hard-copy proof of that status—like a nightmarish mirage. The thing that stung me to the heart was the stories we heard about children being picked on in school—as young as five or six—because their parents weren't born here, or because they weren't born here, and they were told by their classmates, 'We voted for you to go home.' What kind of nation do we want to be: one where people who've chosen to live their lives here are welcomed and supported, or one where we put up barriers?

The report also makes clear how pernicious and damaging the £30,000 salary threshold will be for our economy. The price that the UK Government has chosen to put on the welcome that we give to some citizens doesn't fit with our needs in Wales. And our report makes it clear that the vast majority of EU nationals living and contributing to our economy in Wales already earn far less than that threshold. And they matter. They contribute. They are our neighbours, our colleagues, our friends. Unless this is challenged and changed it will have a terrible impact, yes, on our services, on our NHS, but also on us as a people.

Llywydd, if you visit Shakespeare and Company in Paris—though that may be more difficult to do after Brexit, who knows? But, if you do go, there is a wonderful quotation on the wall:

'Be not inhospitable to strangers lest they be angels in disguise.'

Now, in this, I'm a disciple of John Donne. I believe that no man is an island, that we are not truly strangers to one another, regardless of where we were born. I am an internationalist, and I believe firmly that the way we treat our fellow women and men pays dividends.

EU nationals contribute to our society. That contribution won't diminish after Brexit, and our appreciation of them must not diminish either. We and our policies should follow the better angels of our nature, not our worst.

Can I say at the outset that we shall be supporting this motion? However, I have to point out that I believe every party in this Chamber has expressed its belief and support for those EU citizens now working in the UK, and how they should be allowed—no, even encouraged—to stay, and that that especially applies to those living and working in Wales. So, this debate on the external affairs report will add little or nothing to what has been said and agreed in this Chamber before. What we must not forget—[Interruption.]

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I had to get up because I've been sitting in this Chamber and I've heard comments about 'foreigners' in this Chamber. Do you agree that that type of comment doesn't help the agenda when we're talking to people? They are a part of our communities, they are a part of our society, and for them to be talked about as 'foreigners' is inappropriate.

Absolutely. I think that's a very unfortunate epithet, David. There's no doubt about that at all. [Interruption.] Well, I've not used it in this Chamber.

What we must not forget, however, is that freedom of movement was the biggest single issue raised by the people of the UK, and especially those in Wales. The Labour party, and to a certain extent Plaid Cymru, have paid a heavy price for ignoring the concerns of its former working class supporters.

I've read through this report, and the Government's responses, which of course include all the usual platitudes whilst ignoring the true reality of what mass immigration has meant, not only for the indigenous population but for the vast numbers of immigrants who have found themselves cruelly exploited with none of the rights afforded them by the oft-lauded European workers' rights legislation. Many are little more than slaves, and I refer here not just to the sex trade, but to many other so-called occupations, such as the car washers, which I have raised often in this Chamber. 

There is no mention in this report or in the Government's reply about taking this Brexit opportunity to address these exploitative occupations and to seek to help those engaged in such work to have the freedom to return home and release themselves from the bondage imposed by the criminal organisations that exploit them. I shall remind this Chamber that we had no such practices in the UK until the introduction of mass immigration, especially from former eastern European countries. Surely, addressing these practices is a far more pressing and humanitarian need than a plethora of initiatives designed to inform those who are probably already well aware of their right to stay after Brexit. Indeed, many thousands have already filed the necessary papers to secure their continued residence.

What this report does not address is why we need those people from other countries in the first place. After all, Wales has 22.7 per cent of its population—that's almost a quarter—economically inactive. The answer lies, of course, in both the Labour and Tory parties' neglect in providing the facilities and training opportunities for our indigenous population. We often hear that we could not run our national health service without foreign nationals, yet, every year, 80,000 nurse training applicants who have the necessary qualifications are turned down, and many thousands who, after avleave of absence, wish to return to the health service are turned down, because their skills qualify them for the higher wage bands. Better to plunder cheap labour from abroad. The shortage of doctor training places throughout the UK, including Wales, has been highlighted many times in this Chamber.

So, the Brexit Party sees little in this report or the Government's responses that has not been previously addressed, either by the UK Government or the Welsh Government, and that many of the Welsh Government's responses have confirmed. I'm sure the people of Wales do not want to see good, hard-working European workers removed, repatriated or any other such form of rejection implemented. But what they clearly want is a controlled immigration policy that follows that of the Australian points-based system, now partly proposed by the Tories, but one that some of us have advocated for a very long time.

I have been a strong supporter of freedom of movement for the whole of my adult life. I remember as a teenager being at the border posts that used to exist in our common European home. I have a stamp on a passport from France. I remember having to show my passport to cross the rivers and roads of our continent. One of the greatest gifts that the European Union gave us was to remove those borders and to remove those border posts, to remove that need to demonstrate that we were unable to move from one piece of turf to another.

Our common European home, so often the place where we fought our civil wars, became a place where we could reach out and not build further walls. It's no coincidence that those border posts also were marked by the images of warfare. Moving beyond those borders and looking at a world through the spectacles of, 'Are you indigenous? Am I indigenous? Is somebody else indigenous?', has led to one of the greatest freedoms that we have all enjoyed.

But freedom of movement is also one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented of those freedoms. It is, of course, the free movement of labour. It is the ability of people to move and to work across 28 different territories. It is a freedom that they will not lose, but we will lose. It is a freedom that has enabled people, both in this Chamber and people we all represent, to have enjoyed the opportunities that our forefathers could only dream of. But it's also a freedom, of course, that has been weaponised in many ways, and we've seen the headlines of the gutter press, of the tabloid press, who have used race as a means to create prejudice, and we've heard that this afternoon in this debate.

Let me say this to the Brexit Party: Wales is a nation that was built by immigrants and on immigration. My community—[Interruption.] No, I'm not going to give way to you. I've had enough of you. Wales is a country that has been built on immigration and by immigrants, and my constituents are the consequences of that immigration, as are most of us in this room, in this Chamber today. Our forefathers moved to this country and made it the country it is, the country that we celebrate, the country that we love, the country that we invest our lives in; built and made by wave after wave of immigrants, and we should welcome that.

It is also one of those areas where the United Kingdom Government has abused people in the most appalling way. The failure of the EU settlement scheme has created more needless distress than almost any other policy area, with the possible exception of universal credit. Like Delyth Jewell, I spoke to those people, I looked in their eyes and I saw the disappointment, the hurt and the distress that had been caused not as an unintended consequence of policy but as the intended consequence of policy, and by the words that were used by UK Government Ministers and the prejudice we've heard in the Chamber this afternoon. That has created distress in our communities amongst the people we seek to represent, and we should be deeply, deeply ashamed of that.

And also, we know that the UK Government has got this policy wrong. We know that the salary cap, the salary threshold, will create difficulties for our NHS, will create difficulties for our public services, and will create difficulties for our economy. But do you know what this policy and this approach will do more than anything else that will affect all of us? It will give the impression that we are a mean-spirited people and a mean-spirited country, a country where the term 'indigenous' is used in political debate. And I'll be absolutely clear to you, the only other time I've heard the word 'indigenous' used by a politician has been with the British National Party and the National Front, where race is used to discriminate.

And we should always, all of us who share the liberal values that have created the society that we have today, fight and fight and fight that prejudice, and fight it again. And we will take on the people who spout that prejudice, and do you know what? We will defeat them. Because this is not a mean-spirited country and not a mean-spirited nation. We are a country that welcomes people into our communities, that welcomes people into our towns and villages, and we are a country that recognises and understands our history. And as a consequence, we will fight prejudice and we will prevail.

Mandy Jones.

[Inaudible.]—and black people.

You're a racist.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm sorry, Alun, but it's people like you who actually stir division where there is none.

As a member of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the committee support staff for their help and assistance throughout this report. It's also important to recognise the contribution of the EU citizens and those from other nations who have settled here in Wales who took the time to come and speak to the committee, who added real value and insight also to this report. Finally, I'd like to thank all the stakeholders for their contribution and, of course, a thank you to David Rees as Chair of the committee for all his hard work.

During the EU referendum, immigration and the lack of control was a clear concern for a large part of the public, whether you like it or not. But it is also very important to understand the concerns were mainly to do with a broken immigration system and not total prejudice towards those who come from EU nation states or otherwise. As I said before, it's people and speeches like that that actually create division where there is none.

In gathering evidence for this report, the committee held two focus groups, and from those who attended it is clear that the UK Government must really do more to communicate with citizens from other nations on how they apply for their settled status and provide the reassurance needed. I really do hope that today's news about the £30,000 threshold being lowered or even removed actually comes into practice. Thank you.

It's been an interesting debate this afternoon already. It does remind me of the quote from somebody who was born in 1911, Max Frisch, who said:

'We asked for workers. We got people instead.'

People bring with them their own cultures, their own interests and opinions, and they bring with them a wealth and a depth of tapestry of their own background and their family needs. They don't just come here as workers, but they come to settle, and they come to settle here and be part of this society. They come here and, sometimes, do you know, they want to bring their families with them? They don't want to come on a short-term thing that is just for them, because if they want to come here and contribute and pay their taxes, they'd actually like to bring their wife and their children along sometimes as well.

'We asked for workers. We got people instead.'

It's as true now as it was then. And it does strike me that we are—. And I do thank David for his chairing of this committee, and all the members for their good participation in the evidence that we heard, which was compelling, very personal and very human. But it does strike me that we are often extremely conflicted in our views on immigration generally.

One area that we're not discussing today, for example, is the several hundred people who come into predominantly London each year on the golden visas. So, we're not discussing those who can hand over £2 million a year to the UK Government in order to buy access to the UK, much of it money that—. It was suspended at one time because of the fears of money laundering and corruption, and Russian money, and money that was being translated across several different countries and coming awash here, and then the impact on the London housing market. It was suspended for a short time; it's back in place. It's now at its highest for five years. So, we're not discussing that today.

We're quite conflicted in our approaches to immigration. What we're discussing are things like the people who are below the £30,000 cap. The average salary in Wales is £26,000 a year, not £30,000. The research has suggested that if the £30,000 cap is actually maintained as it is—and I do hope they change their views on this—it could have an impact as substantial as 57 per cent on immigration over the next 10 years within Wales. Well, that 50 per cent impact on our immigration will be tangible. It will be the care workers—it won't be just those people who serve you coffees, although it will be—it will be the care workers, and it will be the health workers, and it'll be the people in manufacturing, working on the production lines, and all of that.

Now, that is why I think the UK Government has to rethink this. Or alternatively, as they've been pushing relentlessly, for an Australian points-based immigration system, which is the zeitgeist. It's a catch-all phrase and so on—. In Australia, they do have the ability to have regional variation in that. So, regional Governments can actually demand variation; they can say, 'Well, for our particular sectors and particular areas, and for our wage levels, we need something different. We need incentives to encourage people to move out of London and the south east and actually move to Wales, to Scotland, to the north east, to the north west, and so on'. So, I hope that the UK Government will be flexible on that.

I just want to note one interesting aspect of this, and it was picked up, in fact, on an interview that our Chair did this week. I think that it's appearing today or yesterday within the press. I found it quite interesting because it actually quoted from one of the people who gave evidence to us—a Polish person, working, paying tax in Swansea, who said:

"The message repeated by politicians appears to be the same: 'You will be allowed to stay—'"

—so, here's the difference between the golden-ticket people arriving in London and those EU people working, paying a wage—not making a million, but working in the Welsh economy.

"The message repeated by politicians appears to be the same: 'You will be allowed to stay. We want you to stay.' Of course, economically speaking they need us to stay, at least for the short term. But there is a big difference between being allowed to stay, and being welcomed."

That's what this is about as well. It's the tone of the debate that we set. I welcome some of the contributions today because they try to get that tone right. But, I have to reflect on members of my own family who, first of all, when challenged with the opportunity to achieve settled status and, at that point, to actually pay for the privilege of doing so—. It did remind some of us—because I have a mixed Irish-Italian background, as well as the Welsh in me as well—that there were times during the wartime conflict when Italians were locked away from wider society. That's what my family has been through. Settled status reminds of that: you are the other.

Now, this is where we have to be exceptionally careful in taking this forward, but I am glad to see that the Government has accepted all of the recommendations, one of them in principle. I think that's wise. I would encourage them to keep engaging constructively with the UK Government and, hopefully, they will listen. Yes, this is about workers. Yes, this is about filling employment opportunities. But, as Max Frisch said: 'We asked for workers. We got people instead.' That's what this is about. We are all immigrants.

The Brexit Minister to contribute to the debate—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I begin by welcoming the report and the vast amount of evidence that was gathered during the inquiry? I’d also like to thank everyone for their contributions.

Most contributions, at any rate, were thoughtful and constructive.

Before I turn to the substance of the report and the three issues in it, namely the proposal for the future immigration system, the settlement scheme for EU citizens and the arguments over differences in migration methods between areas of the UK after Brexit, may I take this opportunity to speak directly with those citizens from other parts of Europe who have chosen to settle here in Wales, to lay down roots and to enrich our communities? I’d like to assure you that we do appreciate your contribution to Wales and there will always be a welcome for you here.

Turning first to the immigration system in future, it continues to be unclear what the system will be and how it will be operated. Apart from the end of freedom of movement and regaining control of our borders, there were no details available for over two years before the publication of the White Paper in December 2018. After the election of Boris Johnson, we’re not even clear whether that reflects the point of view of the current Government.

Despite that, we continue to understand that the intention is for the new migration system to be in effect from 1 January 2021, less than a year away. But let us be entirely clear: the immigration policy for the UK will have a deep impact on communities and the economy of Wales. As opposed to the confusion within the UK Government, we have explained our priorities for immigration policy very clearly. In 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People', we proposed that freedom of movement should be maintained, but to connect it closely with employment, and we do still believe that.

We have used evidence to back up our challenges to the UK Government about the nature of their proposals, particularly the current proposal for a selective approach to future immigration based on skills and salary with the potential threshold of £30,000 that many Members have referred to. The report that we commissioned the Welsh Centre for Public Policy to undertake last year on the impact of migration in Wales after Brexit underlined the damage that a salary threshold would cause to Wales, and if the press speculation that Members have referred to on the dropping of the salary requirements are correct, the Welsh Government would welcome that development. 

We also know that there will be some sectors that emerge as being particularly vulnerable to future reductions in EU migration. These include, of course, social care, health and manufacturing, including agri-food, tourism, hospitality, retail and higher education. The impact will be particularly stark for the food manufacturing sector in Wales, where over 80 per cent of employees earn less than £30,000. Our opposition to a salary threshold, particularly one set at such a high level, has resonated with stakeholders, particularly within the business community, and we must hope that the migration advisory committee, which has been asked to look at this again, will actually come up with a lower and less damaging threshold, or no threshold at all, when it reports in a couple of weeks' time.

That report will also look at the Australian-style points-based system, again which many Members have referred to. Whilst the Prime Minister has talked warmly of introducing that sort of system, it isn't by any means clear how that would be compatible with an employer-led system rationed by a salary threshold. So, we will continue to argue for a migration policy that meets the needs of Wales, and the UK Government, we hope, will listen and act on those views. To date, there has been far too little meaningful engagement with ourselves and the other devolved administrations.

On the EU settlement scheme, I'm still very concerned that there are many people who do not know, or don't fully understand perhaps, what the scheme means for them. There are those who find the digital-only process difficult to navigate. There's confusion about getting settled status or pre-settled status, and what that means in reality for people. Even UK Ministers are confused on this point. One asserted to me only a couple of weeks ago that those with pre-settled status would be automatically upgraded to settled status after they had fulfilled the criteria of five years' residence. That is, of course, not the case.

To be clear, the Welsh Government does not support the scheme; we would much prefer a system that doesn't rely on evidence that can be difficult to provide and that provides a hard copy of the evidence, instead of simply a digital copy, of the right to live and work in our country. However, we are committed to doing all that we can to support EU nationals in Wales to successfully navigate the application process. So, as a Government, we have therefore provided additional advice and support for EU citizens here in Wales. This includes funding the EU settlement scheme advice services through Newfields Law, through Citizens Advice Cymru, and also additional funding for Settled to manage a network of volunteers providing advice and support to EU citizens. We've also recently made additional funding available from the EU transition fund, to increase our communications with EU citizens, as well as providing additional resources to local authorities to increase their involvement.

I'm committed to doing everything that we can to support EU nationals in Wales to secure their status, especially those who are vulnerable and hardest to reach. We are committed to supporting them, and we ask the UK Government as well to recognise the need to adequately publicise their scheme.

Finally, in terms of the possibility of a more spatially differentiated immigration policy, let me say the following: as the WCPP report points out, we in Wales have common cause with the rest of the UK outside London and the south east in terms of the damaging impact of that £30,000 threshold. Our first priority must be to work with others, including businesses and trade unions, who are generally sceptical of having different approaches in different parts of the UK, to ensure that a threshold is not imposed on the UK economy as a whole. But if we are unsuccessful, then we will, of course, reconsider. In the meantime, if the UK Government is serious about a points-based system, which, let me say, I don't think is really compatible with a hard threshold in terms of salary on an employer-led system, then to the point that David Melding made, we will certainly want to discuss with the UK Government and with stakeholders the potential for additional points being awarded to individuals intending to move to Wales, or indeed to other parts of the country, where migration is lower and perhaps where demographic trends are unfavourable.

Would the Minister give way?

Yes, certianly.

Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I just wanted to raise something that has not been raised today. I wonder whether he's had time to get any clarity from the UK Government on the impact for Welsh employers. Because my understanding is that, for tier 2 non-EU workers who are coming into the UK—non-EU, which is what it's all going to be now applied to—there is a surcharge, an immigration skills charge, which is generally £1,000 per year per worker. I look around at small business people here in this Chamber with experience. The impact of that on small to medium-sized businesses could be significant if that was now to be applied right across the board, which I suspect it now will.

Well, certainly, that sort of issue is the kind of issue that, in the number of round-tables we've had with businesses large and small across Wales, those kinds of concerns are very near the top of their list. In particular, as the Member says, in relation to the impact of costs on smaller businesses.

In concluding, can I just stress that migration isn't just about abstract notions of economics and demographics; it's about real people with real lives, real talents and real feelings?

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me in at this late stage. In watching this debate, I heard the word 'indigenous' used. I don’t know what 'indigenous' means, because every single person in this Chamber is the descendent of an immigrant. It's simply a question of when our families came. Would you agree with me that when the word 'indigenous' is used, it is capable of being used in a far nastier way than it would first appear?

Well, I would identify with the comments that the Member for Bridgend has made. I think what has struck a chord with me in this whole discussion and the discussion of the committee is the importance of language and rhetoric. And throughout the last three and a half years, I've been shocked by some of the occasionally thoughtless language that politicians have used, particularly in relation to EU citizens in this country, and I've been appalled to hear the use of language such as 'indigenous populations' and 'mass immigration', which are well-established dog-whistle terms, and we've heard them today in this Chamber from politicians in a way that is not thoughtless, actually, but deliberate. And over the course of this year, we as a Government will do all that we can in terms of how we help to shape the public climate in Wales to try and reverse some of the damage that is caused by the use of that language, and to make sure that when EU citizens listen to proceedings of this Chamber, they will continue to feel welcome here in Wales and know how much we value them. And as David Rees said in his contribution, in making EU citizens living in Wales feel welcome, we are all leaders in doing that.

David Rees to reply to the debate.

I'd like to thank all Members for the contributions to today's debate, and the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for setting out the Welsh Government's position. And before I continue my contribution to close, I want to put on record my thanks to the clerking team and the research team who actually set all this up, because without their hard work and commitment, we wouldn't have had the forums to talk to the people. It's very much appreciated. I'll try to highlight a few of the points raised during the debate, and I'll try and keep it as quick as I can because I'm aware of the time.

David Melding, I very much welcome your valued contribution to the committee. You always give us deep thinking and you remind us often of the historical contribution of our nation through immigration, particularly in your case, for example, you've talked about the Greek groups—but there are many others from other EU nations and from nations outside the EU as well—and how we've benefited. You also reminded us that the points scheme needs consideration to ensure that Wales does not lose out, which the Counsel General also highlighted.

Delyth, you are a passionate internationalist and you demonstrated once again your strong credentials in that area. And she reminded us of our four freedoms, and the result of the referendum is that we will lose those four freedoms.

And the stories we heard from the people, particularly the children and how they've experienced what I'd call disgraceful behaviour from other children, who probably picked it up from their parents. It's something we should never be accepting here in Wales. No child should have to be told, 'Go home' by another child simply because they're from a different nation. It shouldn't happen.

Alun reminded us again of the freedom of movement of labour. That was an issue with people coming to Wales and, yes, there are many who come to Wales, and the former First Minister in his interjection also again reminded us that we are all immigrants. And I'll be honest: my mother was from Belgium. My father's history goes back a couple of hundred years in Port Talbot, but my mother was from Belgium so, technically, my mother was an immigrant coming here after the second world war. So, we are a nation of mixed races and conditions, and we work together, we live together and that's how we should always be. We should never be challenging someone else's past or history; we should be looking to the future, and I hope we do that. 

Huw raised the question about the individual from Poland, and he also said this: that the EUSS—remind me what it is—settlement scheme—I couldn't remember—and the European immigration proposals after Brexit are not simply about administrative processes; they're about people. And Huw reminded us that when we talk about workers, it's about people. When we talk about this today, we are talking about people. We are not talking about some abstract concept; it's about people—the person who lives next door to you, their child, the child who plays with your child—that's who we're talking about, and let's not forget that. When comments come in regarding—. I won't repeat those comments because I don't think they're appropriate. It shouldn't be laughed at, it shouldn't be supported; it should be put down straight away and challenged. We should never be using language that changes that. 

And Mandy, I do welcome your position that you do not seek division and you do not believes division occurs, but both you and David unfortunately kept on highlighting immigration as an issue. I agree with you: immigration I think was an issue in the referendum, but only because it had been raised as hysteria. If we look at the contributions immigrants make to our nation—

Will you take an intervention? 

Yes, I'm more than happy to. 

Don't you think that the hysteria really comes from, say, Labour and Plaid benches? You whip up all this division. You honestly do.

You said Turkey was coming into the EU.

Did I? 

No, I don't think it comes from our benches. I think our benches try to reflect, unfortunately, what's going on in society because of other comments being made, mainly by right-wing parties, and I think it's something we should be challenging on every occasion because we are talking about people who want to live here, who want to work here, who want to contribute here, and those are important to us. We should make them always feel welcome. We should never try and link them to a concept of mass immigration. We should never try and link them to a concept of not being welcome. We should always link them—. Oh, sorry. We should always link them to a concept of welcome. 

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he share my sadness that UK citizens will now be only able to live and work in two countries—the UK and the Republic of Ireland—whereas EU citizens will be able to work in 28 countries and Irish citizens will be able to work in 29 countries, such as my wife and two children? And isn't it sad to see that, and isn't it the case that, in fact, those citizens who will lose out the most from the ending of freedom of movement are actually UK citizens?

I thank the Member for his contribution. He's quite right: the individuals who will probably have more restrictions placed upon them are UK citizens, and it is disappointing that that will be the situation. And let's not forget UK young people who actually want to go and explore. We are limiting their chances in life as well. 

The Brexit Minister highlighted the Welsh Government's actions, and I very much appreciate them. I can appreciate very much the continued challenges that you're going to put to the UK Government to ensure that the immigration policy works for Wales. It is extremely important that we do that.

Llywydd, it's an evolving policy area and I appreciate that. It's the intention of our committee to keep a watching brief on the activities of both Governments as we await the outcome of the migration advisory committee's review, which I expect to be published shortly. And I want to reiterate my message, and the message from the vast majority of Members here today, that people who have come here to work, who have come here to be part of our community, who have come here to build a life are very much welcome, very much supported, and whether you've got a piece of paper or not, we consider you our friends.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.