Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Thank you very much for calling me. Few things, I think, illustrate the gulf between the obsessions of the political class on the one hand and the real concerns of ordinary people on the other in their everyday lives. This disconnect has grown, I think, in the course of my lifetime. I'm very disturbed by the references to systemic and structural racism in Wales in this motion and in some of the speeches that we've heard today. I think this is a grotesque slur and an appalling libel on our own electors.

Laura Anne Jones told a charming anecdote about her 10-year-old son: he doesn't know any people who thought that people were to be thought worse of on account of the colour of their face. Well, I think if she'd asked other parents the same question, for the views of their friends, she'd have got exactly the same answer. I don't know anybody who thinks worse of somebody because of the colour of his or her skin, and I think that would be the experience of us all. There is no evidence for this, I believe, that there is systemic racism or institutional racism in Wales, or indeed in the United Kingdom.

There was of course at one time: when I was born in 1949, I was brought into the world by probably the only black doctor in Wales. He was a Nigerian and I was born in a pit village in the Sirhowy valley called Fleur-de-lis, and my father helped him to overcome racial prejudice and the negative attitudes of the time and to build a practice. He found it very difficult to get going, so he devoted himself to my mother and her difficult pregnancies in the years to come. And Neil McEvoy's amendment referring to the Windrush generation, I think, is very poignant as well, and had it been selected, I would certainly have voted for it. There was real racism in the 1940s and the 1950s, and as my proposed amendment said, in the course of the last five decades also, we've made tremendous progress in changing social attitudes and therefore improving the life chances of people of different ethnic groups.

The race relations industry, of course, works very hard to create friction, because that creates jobs for them and keeps them in jobs. They're grudge hunters, so they'll find grudges. The references to Black Lives Matter I find quite extraordinary, because this isn't some kind of benign social organisation; this is an extreme far-left agitprop organisation that believes in defunding the police and ending capitalism. It's explicitly committed to that. Its founder, Patrisse Cullors, an American, believes we should abolish the police, abolish prisons and abolish the army. And of course, the protests of Black Lives Matter gave rise to some of the most disgraceful scenes of violence and disorder that we've seen in the last 12 months, with the desecration of the Cenotaph in London and other war memorials in other parts of the country, and the tearing down and desecration of statues to famous British people.

Of course, what counts as racism today in history takes no account whatsoever of the attitudes of the time: Mr Gladstone is now a racist, of course, as well. His family did make money out of the slave trade, but he devoted his political life, of course, to the abolition of slavery and the improvement of the condition of ordinary people in this country. The idea that he should be regarded as a racist and, therefore, that statues to him should be removed is just absurd. Of course, there is a Cambridge professor who tweeted in the aftermath of Black Lives Matter that white lives don't matter, but of course, she was promoted to a full professorship at Cambridge, so that kind of racism in reverse is rewarded, whereas the fantasy racism of our historical figures is execrated by those who follow the Black Lives Matter movement.

So, Black Lives Matter's aggressive tactics, I think, set race relations back. It creates resentment and ordinary people know what's going on here. People who have very little in life are told that they've got white privilege. Well, they don't recognise privilege in the lives that they lead in places like Blaenau Gwent, for example, one of the poorest towns in western Europe. Labour and Plaid between them have now become totally obsessed by identity politics, which pit groups against one another based on race or gender or sexuality. Labour, in particular, is now the prisoner of a metropolitan multicultural mindset, which is why, of course, they lost all those seats in so-called 'red wall' constituencies in the last general election.

And I'm amazed by the enthusiasm expressed by the Conservative Party for this motion and the attitudes that lie behind it. I don't know what the average Conservative Member thinks of that kind of approach; I don't think they'd be very impressed by it.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country do not think along racial lines and they judge people on their character. The UK is in fact one of the most tolerant countries in the world, which believes in the rule of law, free speech and democracy. But racism is endemic in many parts of Africa and Asia. This UN convention that's mentioned in the motion today is just a case of hypocrisy and virtue signalling for many of its signatories. China, Turkey and Brazil are on the monitoring committee that looks at the way this convention is being observed. Well, look at the treatment of the Uighurs in China by the Chinese Government, or the Kurds in Turkey by the Turkish Government, or Brazil's attitude towards the indigenous peoples of the Amazon.