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.