First Minister, I wrote to your health secretary about 10 days ago, outlining my concerns of Swansea Bay University Health Board, not only about the workforce, with potentially 800 jobs being lost—. The fact of the matter is that, over the last three years, over £112 million of deficit has added up to financial pressures.
They've also doubled their provision for negligence as well, to £40 million. So, not only is the NHS workforce paying the price of this financial disaster—. My question is, given that the forecast over the next year is that an extra £77 million overspend is going to happen in that health board, is your current level of intervention adequate? If not, what further steps are you going to take, First Minister?
I don't know how I can beat that with my fellow Member's enthusiasm, but thank you for the answer so far. The backdrop to this question is significant because the previous Welsh Labour Government signed letters of intent with Swansea Council to occupy space in the five-storey public sector hub being built there on the old St David's shopping centre site in the city centre. Following the May election, a Welsh Government spokesperson confirmed that the decision had not been taken any further, which is a huge shame, given that there is now going to be occupancy there. Obviously, I would like to reiterate that we would love to see a presence there. However, there is an important factor to consider here when we are spending taxpayers' money, because given, critically, that Welsh Government staff are normally based, as highlighted previously, in Penllergaer, their existing daily attendance there was about 10 per cent, which is quite poor. So, going forward, would the Commission do a cost-feasibility analysis of having an office in Swansea? And, yes, perhaps in the city centre because we need that footfall. I would like to say Mumbles, because I know your good self came to Mumbles promenade last year, where you saw the new sea defence, which is a credit to the Welsh Government. It is a fantastic asset there, as I was previously a councillor. But would you commit to doing a cost-feasibility analysis of having an office in Swansea? Thank you.
Thank you, Presiding Member. Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated this afternoon in what was undoubtedly going to be a heated debate. We have heard again today that the same rhetoric is pushed out by Labour and Plaid Cymru every single time this topic is discussed. A nation of sanctuary is an open-ended commitment written into Welsh Government policy that signals to everyone, regardless of how they arrived or why, that Wales is a place to come. The policy sends a clear message to those arriving illegally that they will be looked after. And please note, I said 'illegally', not because I say so, but the law says so.
There are safe and legal routes here, and the war in Ukraine is a prime example of that, with mostly women and children fleeing war-torn countries—up to 90 per cent of them are women and children—unlike the ones that we see mentioned by colleagues here. The Welsh Government—you’re absolutely right, Members who’ve commented here this afternoon—does not control immigration. That is correct. But the Welsh Government absolutely controls the signal it sends and the support it gives and the funds it supports them with. When you brand yourself the world’s first nation of sanctuary, you are making a choice. You are placing a neon sign above Wales.
And this is where I cannot agree with Members across the Chamber that it doesn’t impact our public services, and this is why: the cost of such a policy in financial terms by 2025—over £63 million has been spent on the scheme. But that is just the start. The UK Government’s own figures show that the average asylum seeker with a case granted under article 8 of the European convention on human rights is estimated to cost over £140,000 per person over the course of their lifetime. That includes housing, benefits and public services, and this is believed to be at the lower end of the estimate. All of this puts pressure on our services, whether you like it or not. Even in socialist-run Denmark, studies have shown the real cost could even be closer to £0.5 million per person. So, for the 3,400 asylum seekers we have in Wales, over the course of their lifetimes, that could be £1.7 billion. Let us look at housing—[Interruption.] It is fact. [Interruption.] No, it is fact.
Let us look at housing—[Interruption.] Let’s turn to housing, as we have discussed housing before. This is where the Government's position collapses entirely. When my colleague Steven Rodaway asked the Cabinet Minister a few weeks ago whether the nation of sanctuary programme had been factored into the target of the 20,000 social homes, the Minister admitted that the Welsh Government does not actually gather the data on the social housing that Wales allocates to those in refugee status, and directed him to the Home Office. Gwyn Williams has also confirmed today, with his research with the Senedd, that this is backed up, because he highlighted that they are not all in hotels. They are in our communities in HMOs and other rented accommodation.
No matter what Labour or Plaid Cymru might say, you do not have the monopoly on compassion. We all play our part in supporting communities, but when our roads are crumbling and public services are in chaos, and the cost of living is out of control, the people of Wales have to come first, and we are here to represent them.
Now, let me address the question, Plaid Cymru and Labour Members, who enjoyed muddying the waters—. Who exactly are we talking about? Because the Government would have you believe that every person arriving here under the asylum system has crossed the channel from a war zone on the first available boat. The reality, as we have heard from my colleagues, is rather different. The vast majority of those arriving on small boats have travelled through multiple safe countries to get here. France is a signatory to the refugee convention, Germany is, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy—all of them. Under the Dublin regulation principle, asylum seekers are supposed to claim protection in the first country they reach. The decision to bypass all of those countries and continue to the United Kingdom is not a decision made by somebody simply fleeing danger, it is a destination choice.
Let me turn to the question of public safety, because I know Members of the opposite party find this subject deeply uncomfortable. Pointed out by colleagues previously, the analysis of the Ministry of Justice obtained under the freedom of information request found that, between 2021 and 2023, foreign nationals were convicted of sexual offences at a rate of 71 per cent higher than the British population as a whole. Those figures are not invented by Reform UK, those—[Interruption.] Yes, go on.
There we are. Thank you. I won't be taking lectures by the opposition on protecting women and children. In the last few weeks, I think that's a bit below par. So, I don't think so.
Why are we allowing them? Why are we allowing them? I've just given you the stats—a rate of 71 per cent higher than the British population as a whole, and we're allowing them to come in. Thank you.
Yes, I'll speed up super quick. Thank you, Llywydd. Those figures are not invented by Reform UK, those are Ministry of Justice figures. So, I won't be taking any lectures on that.
I finish with an abstract I've taken from a resident of my constituency who recently contacted me because they knew we were debating about it:
'The quality of life has deteriorated, the streets are no longer as clean, community pride has diminished, and for the first time in my life, I no longer feel safe walking around my neighbourhood after dark. The nation of sanctuary policy might have been introduced with good intentions, but the reality on the ground is very different. Communities like mine are carrying the consequences while being expected to remain silent.'
And that is the key point. People won't be silenced anymore. Having this debate doesn't create division, but real division happens when you suppress people's voices. I now call for support for this motion in the name of Dan Thomas.
I thank the First Minister for his answer. First Minister, the previous Labour Government introduced a £5,000 grant available exclusively to student teachers on the basis of their ethnicity—not their subject specialism, not their ability, not their potential, but solely their ethnicity. After four years, the Welsh Labour Government's own data shows the scheme has done almost nothing. Meanwhile, a fifth of children leaving primary school in Wales are unable to read properly and our Programme for International Student Assessment scores have hit record lows compared to the rest of the UK. Your manifesto promises better incentives for trainee teachers and your new Government has already quietly rolled out this grant forward into 2026-27. First Minister, will this Government continue paying public money to recruit teachers on the basis of race rather than merit, or will you finally commit to a teacher recruitment system that judges every candidate by the same standard, as the people of Wales deserve?
I thank the Minister for her answer. Plaid Cymru's manifesto acknowledged the need to review the role and the fitness of bodies including Creative Wales and the Arts Council of Wales. These bodies distribute significant sums of Welsh taxpayers' money with limited transparency. The Books Council of Wales, for example, operates as a charity and is not subject to the same accountability requirements of a public body, despite being substantially funded by the Welsh Government. Nation.Cymru holds a four-year cultural grant from the Books Council of Wales worth £25,000 per year. Now, this publication has routinely launched partisan attacks through misleading reporting and derogatory name calling towards Members of this Chamber. An article still published on their website even today even refers to a Member of this Chamber with what I can describe as another word for a penis. You could argue that this is part of normal political back and forth, but the taxpayer is having to pick up the bill for this type of reporting thanks to these funding structures. So, will the Minister today publish, or commit to a timetable for her department to publish the terms of reference, methodology and completion date for the reviews of these bodies, and will those reviews include an assessment of whether every grant they distribute meets a consistent standard of political impartiality and general public benefit?
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, you stood on a manifesto promise to deliver at least 20,000 new social homes by 2030. The people of Wales elected you on this commitment. So, I would like to know what are the annual milestones. How many social homes do you expect to be built by March 2027, March 2028 and March 2029, because a target without a trajectory is not a commitment, it is a deadline with nowhere to hide until it is too late? Therefore, Minister, can you confirm today that you will publish an annual milestone against your 20,000 social home target within the first 100 days of your Government, of which you have 60 remaining? In addition, what specific actions do you intend to take to increase the supply of housing for the 84 per cent of Welsh households who are not in receipt of social housing but who are suffering the consequences of a lack of supply of homes for sale and rent?
Thank you, Minister. I'm sure you'll agree that if we can't have a timetable for the 20,000 homes, we can't monitor the progress of your Government, and that's why we, Reform UK, will hold you to account and scrutinise you, which the people of Wales want us to do.
Your Government has recognised that the planning system is broken, which is something I think we can both agree on. However, in order for you to tackle this issue, you are giving life to a new arm's-length body, a new taxpayer body to navigate a planning system so burdened with regulation that the builders have simply stopped building, a planning system so dysfunctional that even the planning officers are planning their way out of the jobs. I ask the Minister to tell this Chamber, before you create another body to manage the bureaucracy, will you commit to an urgent time-limited review of every regulatory layer currently preventing Welsh builders from breaking ground? And will you set a deadline in this Senedd term by which you will have removed those that cannot be justified?
Diolch, Minister, for your response. I would like to move our attention to local government, which I know is a matter close to our hearts, both having been previous councillors. In 11 months' time, we will be sending people in Wales back to the ballot box to exercise their vote and determine their new local governments. Now, given the finance Minister admitted over the weekend that your Government is facing extremely difficult decisions to fund your election pledges, which doesn't come as a surprise as your costings are still missing in action—but I'm sure they will arrive sometime in the autumn—wouldn't it be prudent to require councils to carry out post-election value-for-money audits? Following each local election, councils should be required to conduct a comprehensive audit of spending, contracts and service delivery. This would expose inefficiencies early and allow new administrations to act decisively. So, Minister, will you work constructively with us to implement this policy to ensure value for money for local council tax payers?
Diolch, Lywydd. I move this motion in the name of Llŷr Powell, on behalf of Reform UK, on a straightforward principle that the people of Wales have a right to know who is trying to influence the laws and decisions made in their name, and that right is currently not being met. Every healthy democracy needs transparency, and for too long this institution has operated under a veil of secrecy on one of the most consequential relationships in politics: the relationship between decision makers and those who seek to influence them.
Let me be clear at the outset: lobbying itself is not necessarily a problem. Charities can lobby for vulnerable people, small businesses lobby for fairer regulations, trade unions lobby for their members, farmers lobby for food security, and community groups lobby for better local services. None of that in itself is sinister, and nothing in this motion seeks to discourage it, restrict it or obstruct ordinary people who simply want to make their voices heard to those that represent them. What this motion is about is the difference between lobbying that happens in the open and the influence that happens in the shadows, and ensuring that the public can always tell the difference.
Let's deal with the facts as they stand today. Wales currently has no statutory register of lobbyists. What exists instead is a set of voluntary guidelines agreed by resolution in this Chamber back in 2013, supplemented by a code of conduct that places the burden of due diligence on individual Members rather than on any systematic framework. Compare that with the rest of the islands, as they now stand. Scotland has had a statutory lobbying register since 2016. Ireland has run one since 2015. Westminster also has its own register, covering consultant lobbyists. Notably, the Welsh Government opted out. When Transparency International assessed ministerial transparency and integrity regulations across the four UK Governments, Wales came in third. Third out of four. That is not a record to be defended, that is a record to be corrected.
This is not a new concern either. As far back as the Standards of Conduct Committee's own inquiry into lobbying, evidence was submitted making exactly the case we at Reform UK are making today. Public affairs practitioners themselves, the very people who would be on that register, told the committee that a statutory register would be welcome, provided it covered both in-house lobbyists and outside agencies, not just one or the other. They argued sensibly that, given how often minority Governments are a feature of politics here, influence doesn't only flow through Welsh Ministers, it flows through every Member of this Senedd, because every Member can move legislation, table amendments and shift outcomes. A register that only captures ministerial meetings would only capture a fraction of the picture.
There is also the question of why successive Governments have resisted this. A former Minister once argued that legislation on lobbying was unnecessary because lobbyists, in his words, did not have access to Ministers. I don't think anyone in this Chamber or anybody watching at home genuinely believes that sentiment. We know meetings happen, we know access happens. The only question is whether the public gets to see who is asking for that triple access pass, on whose behalf and on what subject. A register doesn't stop those meetings from happening. It simply means the people of Wales get to know they are happening.
Now, Reform's position on this is straightforward and consistent with the position we set out clearly to the people of Wales before they sent us here. We pledged to introduce a lobbyist register for the Senedd, bringing Wales into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. This Senedd has an opportunity at the start of the new term to close a gap that has been left open for far too long and to end the idea of a closed revolving door for the Cardiff Bay bubble, which has led to too many politicians becoming disconnected from ordinary people and led to a perception that politicians have their snouts in the trough. We have a chance to end this perception today. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members across the Chamber. Thank you.
Thank you, First Minister. I would like to raise the appalling conditions of many of our roads across my constituency in Gower and Swansea West. From Mumbles to Morriston, local residents have been suffering the consequences of the hopelessly inadequate roads and the enormous volume of potholes. I'm pretty sure all of us have hit one recently and are paying the price on our suspension. Unfortunately, Swansea Labour council have taken their eyes off the ball. Their current obsession with a costly zip wire project means they've taken their eyes off our roads and into the skies. When the Welsh Government makes its funding allocations, what steps will the First Minister and the Minister for local government be taking to ensure that local councils spend taxpayers' money on essential infrastructure, such as our roads?
Diolch. I've listened carefully to the Minister's statement, and I've been listening for signs that this Government understands why Wales is in the housing crisis it is in. I have to say, the devil will be in the finer detail.
The crisis did not happen suddenly; it was built brick by brick—well, not even brick by brick with Welsh Labour, but for 27 years of Welsh Labour Government propped up by Plaid Cymru at every turn. The Home Builders Federation have confirmed the need for 7,400 new homes annually. However, Wales has averaged just 5,300 completions per year over the last five years—a gap of over 2,000 homes every single year, and the trajectory is getting worse, not better.
Between 2024 and 2025, fewer than 4,000 new dwellings were started, with out-of-date local development plans, delays at every stage of the planning process—and for those of us who've been councillors in previous lives, that shouldn't be a surprise—and the growing burden of regulation and policy costs all identified as the primary causes. This isn't just the second lowest completion rate since COVID or the financial crisis; this is the second lowest since records began, more than 50 years ago. The Federation of Master Builders have been sounding the alarm in Wales for years. The Government didn't listen.
So, what is the answer from the Minister's statement? A new national development body. Let us be direct about what that could mean: another quango. If the planning system is so broken that you need a brand-new arm's-length body just to navigate it, then you should fix that broken system first, surely. Until we see the detail on this proposed arm's-length body, I'll reserve judgment. However, let me be clear: this must not become another layer of bureaucracy.
This also goes for your proposed town centre taskforce. We can't afford more hot air and no action because people are waiting for homes. Reform's answer would be to tear up the red tape, allowing local builders to get on with the job, while creating a system that incentivises the planning departments to work proactively, and not reactively without any accountability. We do not need any more taxpayer-funded bodies to wade through a broken system.
I note the Government wants to introduce rent controls, but this Government needs to confront the evidence on rent controls. Every serious economic analysis and the lived experience of Scotland, Ireland and European cities that have tried it say the same thing: price controls reduce supply. They do not make housing more affordable, they make housing more scarce, and the most vulnerable tenants will be paying the price.
I noted the Building Safety (Wales) Act 2026 in your statement. My team and I have already set up a meeting with the Welsh Cladiators, you'll be pleased to know, Minister, and I hope this Government will be proactive in supporting them after nine long years of Welsh Labour ignoring them.
Reform's attitude to local government is clear. We would be pushing for savings wherever we could, including needless duplication. We would advocate for referendums on any council tax rises of 5 per cent and above, making sure local politicians live within their means, putting their vanity projects to one side and focusing on core services. Will the Minister consider this?
The difference between your Government and Reform on housing, planning and local government isn't just about ambition, it is about philosophy. Plaid Cymru believes the answer to the housing crisis is more politicians, more regulation and more bodies to manage the bureaucracy they have created with their ex-partners, Labour. Reform believes the answer is to remove the barriers, re-energise ownership and trust local builders and homebuyers to do what they always do when politicians and red tape get out of the way.