 Llywodraeth Hanna, mae'r Cymru wedi'i gweithio'n gweithio'r EU's global approach to migration and mobility. Can you tell us what prompted the committee to start that inquiry? Well, it's a pretty sensitive subject this, both in Britain and in the other European member states. Particularly sensitive of course at a time when there's high unemployment and when the rise of parties on the extreme right in particular make immigration an issue. So, we thought that for that reason alone it was worth having a look at this. But also we felt that it needed to be looked at because this is one of those areas where responsibility is divided between the member states who have absolute control on the numbers of legal migrants who come in. And the European Union, which does not have such control but which does operate in a number of ways through development policy, through helping member states with their migration controls and so on, to operate. So that joint responsibility, we wanted to see whether that worked, whether there were any implications of it which were good or bad for the United Kingdom. And finally, I think we were of course triggered off by the fact that the commission had sent forward a document called the communication on the general approach to migration and mobility, which was the basis of our study and which we wanted to see whether they got it broadly right or not. One of the key findings in the report is that there needs to be a more coordinated and flexible approach both at the EU level and by member states when it comes to managing migration. Can you tell us a little bit about how you reached that conclusion? Well, let's deal with flexibility first because that's very important. At the moment with high unemployment and a lot of pressure from outside by economic migrants coming to come to the European Union, there tends to be pretty heavy emphasis all around in every country on the need to control that. And that is understandable, though sometimes excessive. But if you look at the demographic pattern, the way populations are developing in the European countries, both in terms of aging and in terms of a lowering of the birth rate well below the normal rate of replacement, you do, I think, come to the conclusion that over time Europe will need rather a lot of economic migrants, particularly skilled or well qualified economic migrants, if economic growth and prosperity are to be sustained. So there's a balance to be struck there and that seemed to us a very important part of the equation. Now, the other part that you ask about, which is how is this being managed, should there be more coordination? Well, up to a point, we do not think that responsibility for controlling migration should be transferred from the member states to the European Union. And nor, interestingly enough, did the officials in the commission whom we spoke to, nor even the members of the European Parliament whom we spoke to. Everyone agrees that this is too sensitive a subject, too much a matter of national control to be capable of being changed without a great deal of our people and controversy, and nobody proposed it. But there are a lot of things that the European Union can do, helping some of the weaker member states, for example Greece, to improve their frontier controls, helping all member states to integrate economic migrants into their societies when they come here by exchanges of peer experience and so on. And also by operating some of the tools of development policy and cooperation with the countries from which most of the migrants come. Countries like Turkey and Pakistan are countries of the southern Mediterranean shore and the former Soviet Union. And so we wanted to look at all those issues and that's what we've been doing for the last three or four months. What were the other major findings that the committee reached? Well, we concluded that, by and large, the European Union, what it was doing, it was doing reasonably well. The idea of mobility partnerships, which have now been negotiated with four countries, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Cape Verde. They're very small countries on the whole, so you can't judge too much from them, but they appear to be working. They say they are helping those countries moderate the amount of external migration by helping them develop their economies, but also making the whole situation better controlled. And we think that subject to careful evaluation on education, that system should be expanding. They are at the moment negotiating a mobility partnership with Tunisia and there will probably be others. We tried a regional efforts also, for example how to handle the huge refugee outflow from Syria and to ensure that that does not lead to a flood of refugees coming into the European Union. Those regional efforts are important too. And we also looked into how development policies can work in such a way that the highly developed area like the European Union doesn't cream off all the best people from developing countries. And deprive them of their best educated and best qualified citizens. How can we develop a kind of circularity, as it's called, so that some of the diaspora go back, or their children go back, or they send remittances. And if so, how to make those sending of remittances a bit more efficient, a bit quicker, a bit less costly. All these are issues which arise. And also there is the need to insert the European Union, Europe, which is quite a big lump of the world, into the global consideration of these migration issues. There are a number of UN bodies and a forum which Peter Sutherland, who is a former European commissioner, chairman of government sacks and VP, who is the UN Secretary General's special representative for migration, he chairs this forum and Europe plays a very positive and very useful role in that. And we wanted to look at that and we endorsed it. We did also look at areas where national policy, exercised in our case by the British government, whether it was positive or negative. And we concluded that broadly speaking, as I said earlier, it is right that national governments remain in charge. But we did identify one area where the individuality of the British approach seemed to us to be damaging to Britain, and that is in the control of the migration of students. We, like many other select committees, for others, including ourselves, have now recommended very strongly that the government should ensure that their policy of reducing migration, net migration to tens of thousands, should not lead to any impediments to the arrival of bona fide well-qualified students here, whose study here is very much in Britain's interest, because they bring massive resources into the country. It's an invisible export, therefore, because they help Britain's influence after they've studied and qualified and returned to their own countries. And they are not economic migrants in any true sense of the word, because they are not doing jobs here. They are paying us money to teach them. And we concluded that the government's policies in this respect were not being successful, that they risked damaging Britain in respect to both of its competitors in countries like the United States, Canada or Australia, but also in the countries of the rest of the European Union, where more and more universities are teaching in English now, and are therefore competitors of our universities. So we're trying to persuade the government, so far with not very great success, I'm afraid, to ensure that students are not affected in any public policy way by the attempt to get migration down to the tens of thousands. You talked about that effort to persuade the government and the committee have now published their report. What are the next steps? Well, the next steps are that the government has to respond to our report. They have incidentally also got to respond to about four other Senate committees who have made similar recommendations. And they have two months to do that. After that, we shall have a debate. In all the questions in the House of Lords and the debates in the House of Lords, it came up, for example, in last week's debate on external policy. It comes up in any number of questions on the issue of student visas. The overwhelming view in the House of Lords is that the government has got it wrong. That this policy, in so far as the impacts on students, is contrary to our interests, and that they need to make some kind of change to avoid that. I'm hoping that somewhere in the next few months that penny will drop and they will understand that this is not an attack on the overall approach of trying to get migration under control, to get the border agency to be more effective, and to stop bogus students coming here. We're talking here about bona fide students. We're talking about students who are enrolled in well-known, well-class universities here and who are certified by the universities as being there and being taught. These systems are now fully in operation, and frankly, the problem about bogus students has been hugely reduced in the last two or three years, and it is not, in any sense, a justifiable motive for clamping down on the overall influx of students, which is good news for Britain.