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.