The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendment 6 in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected.

The next item on the agenda is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on zero-hours contracts, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion.

Motion NDM6244 David J. Rowlands

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that, although zero-hours contracts can benefit employers and workers in the freedom and flexibility they can offer, they can also create problems relating to reliability of income, security of employment, employment status and the balance of power between employer and employee.

2. Notes that, for the majority of those employed on zero-hours contracts, this freedom is more illusory than real and, for those who need a minimum number of working hours per week to ensure financial security for their family, life on a zero-hours contract is one of almost permanent uncertainty;

3. Notes that, for those who have had their hours reduced or changed because of a perceived unwillingness to work the hours their employer requires or following the lodging of a workplace complaint, this uncertainty can be coupled with the anxiety that comes from exploitation.

4. Believes that working on zero hours contracts has the potential to:

a) create a life of stress;

b) impact negatively on the management of household budgets;

c) impinge on family commitments;

d) undermine employment rights and relations; and

e) complicate access to tax credits and other benefits, the continued rise of which is a growing concern.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. Over the last 17 years, the UK has seen a huge proliferation of zero-hours contracts, rising from under 200,000 in the year 2000 to approaching 1 million today. This unprecedented increase correlates directly to the phenomenon of mass uncontrolled immigration over those years.

In truth, ‘zero-hours contract’ is a misnomer—it is not a contract at all. A contract is an instrument drawn up by the signees that indicates an agreement between the two parties. This so-called contract of employment is no such thing, because it is completely one-sided. It contains none of the safeguards for workers usually incorporated in such a document—indeed, it is, in fact, the complete opposite, because it takes away any rights normally associated with such a contract. It is, quite frankly, a contract to abuse.

The zero-hours contract is almost exclusively used in the semi-skilled and unskilled labour market—that very section of the labour market that is universally accepted as most affected by mass immigration. There has been the spurious argument—indeed, promulgated in this very Chamber—that it is a gateway to employment. It is, of course, no such thing. Agency contracts were used for such work opportunities, until, of course, legislation was passed to give agency workers at least some of the rights enjoyed by fully contracted workers.

This instrument of employment is a prime example of the ability of big business and multi-national corporations to circumvent any legislation when there are market forces that allow them to do so. Mass uncontrolled immigration has provided just such a market.

It is said that many jobless people are forced to take zero-hours contracts or face losing their benefit payments. Little wonder we have record in-work poverty and a huge escalation in food banks. Indeed, that well-loved political personality Tony Blair promised as far back as 1997 that he would abolish these contracts. Unfortunately, like so many of his promises, it was pure rhetoric.

I confine myself in this debate to some economic consequences—[Interruption.] I think you’ll have plenty of time after I’ve finished.

I have a short question on that.

Yes, of course.

On the subject of empty rhetoric, will he accept that people in the Chamber will find the premise of the debate and the motion brought forward by UKIP completely incredible, given that their leader in the Assembly here spent a whole political career in Parliament denouncing and calling for the deregulation of working conditions? I’m afraid that most of us will find what you’re saying completely incredible.

It is said that many jobless people are forced to take these zero-hours contracts. I confine myself in this debate to some economic consequences of mass immigration, but it brings in its wake perhaps even more dire abuses than those I seek to outline: people trafficking, sex exploitation, child abuse and even an unbelievable concept in Britain in the twenty-first century—slavery.

I have spoken before in this Chamber of the huge proliferation of car wash facilities since the onset of the free movement of people. I make no apology for highlighting these establishments yet again, because they are a prime example of that huge underbelly of exploitation for which mass, uncontrolled immigration is wholly responsible. How many in this Chamber would be content to work 10 hours a day, seven days a week for just £3 per hour? It is a disgrace that no local authority, most of whom in Wales are controlled by the Labour Party, has made any attempt to close these appalling establishments. Nor indeed has there been any pressure applied by the Welsh Government to get them to do so. My cynical side makes me wonder: is it because many in this Chamber are content to use their services? Here please note that I am not talking against migrant workers, but rather in their defence. I am not content to see people, whoever and from wherever they come, to be exploited in this way.

I have no doubt that contributors to this debate will use the same spurious argument that I and my party blame immigrants for every conceivable problem in this country. By doing so, they seek to stifle sensible, informed debate on the subject. They have attempted to do this ever since we in the UK Independence Party had the temerity to bring the subject into the public domain, this despite the fact that we were reflecting the concerns of the people with regard to immigration, not leading it.

We were reflecting concerns that were expressed to us time and again on the doorsteps throughout the south Wales Valleys, as well as in many working class areas across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom—concerns completely ignored by all the other parties. Indeed, they have done everything possible to suppress such debate. They continually use the racist card against anyone who shows concern, concern that is based purely on numbers, not on race, colour or religion. There are some in this Chamber who still seek to do so; a deliberate attempt to ignore the voice of those very people they claim to represent and who are most affected by the subject of immigration.

We have recently witnessed, quite rightly, the outrage with regard to Sports Direct and their almost exclusive use of zero-hours contracts, but other corporations are using these contracts in the same way, including that corporate giant, McDonald’s. Those who work under zero-hours contracts find it impossible to obtain a mortgage. The sporadic nature of their work gives no security of income, and therefore precludes them from the possibility of entering the homebuyers market. Some finance companies will advance loans under hire purchase agreements, due mainly to their ability to repossess items purchased in such a way, and unfortunately it very often results in such action being taken. Non-security of income leads to non-payment, through no fault of the borrower, simply the fact that they may go weeks or even months without a wage. Zero-hours contracts can therefore be seen to create a life of stress by impacting negatively on family budgets and undermining employment rights, and complicate the access to tax credits and other benefits. The zero-hours contracts take us back to the nineteenth century, when workers were forced to turn up at dockyard gates to be given, or not given, a single day’s work. They have no place in twenty-first century Britain. The UK Independence Party utterly condemns this cynical instrument of worker exploitation.

I have selected the seven amendments to the motion, and if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. I call on Bethan Jenkins to move amendments 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Bethan Jenkins.

Amendment 1—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete point 1 and replace with:

Believes that the potential variability of work and earnings as a result of zero hour contracts can be a source of financial instability and stress and that unfair employment terms and conditions can have a negative impact on staff morale and productivity in a way that leads to a poorer quality service.

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point after point 3 and renumber accordingly:

Regrets that attempts by Plaid Cymru to ban zero hour’s contracts in various sectors on five different occasions during the fourth Assembly were voted down by the Labour Welsh Government and Welsh Conservatives.

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

In point 4, add as new sub-point:

lead to a poorer quality service.’

Amendment 5—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls upon the Welsh Government to ban the use of zero hours contracts in all devolved Welsh public services.

Amendment 7—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Ensures that the use of zero-hour contracts, including specifying this through any services that are procured, is prohibited in the Assembly.

Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 moved.

Llywydd, I’m pleased to be taking part in this debate, because in Plaid Cymru we have absolutely nothing to hide or be ashamed of when it comes to this important issue of supporting working people. We have consistently championed an end to exploitative and unstable zero-hours contracts, and we’ve used our votes in this Chamber to prove it. It’s ironic that UKIP has presented to this debate today. Despite UKIP’s recent efforts to adopt a left-wing face, the truth is often hidden below the surface. In fact, UKIP’s small business manifesto, published just a few short years ago in 2013, proposed, and I quote, that

‘UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays…overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc. and provide a statutory, standard, very short employment contract template’.

That doesn’t, to me, show commitment to legislate in favour of these working people, something that you have said that you would want to do earlier on today.

We believe that the amendments put forward by my colleague Rhun ap Iorwerth would offer hope to the thousands in Wales who earn just half of what those on stable contracts earn. We offer those amendments on behalf of the women who make up over half of those who are on zero-hours contracts.

We do not accept Tory and Labour arguments regarding the necessity or the inevitability of zero-hours contracts, and we reject arguments that point to changes in working patterns as evidence, as if this is a natural process in a modern world; in most cases, it isn’t. In most cases, the so called flexibility of these contracts may be a dream for profit-driven, cost-cutting employers, but they can be a cause of great heartache and uncertainty for workers and their families.

It will be interesting to see which way the Labour Party votes today. On five different occasions in the last Assembly term, they voted in lockstep with the Conservatives against ending zero-hours contracts. Labour even voted with the Tories against a Plaid Cymru amendment to ban these damaging contracts in the care sector in Wales.

Thank you for giving way. I wonder whether you would concede that that is a very unfair accusation, because on those occasions, we voted because the inclusion of zero-hours contracts would have led to a Supreme Court challenge of very important legislation on things like the social services and well-being Act, and that we have always made clear our opposition to these kinds of employment arrangements.

I don’t, actually, because we obviously put forward the agricultural wages Bill and that was challenged in the Supreme Court, and I think if you’re going to be setting the agenda, politically and principally, we need to be doing that with the trade union Bill. I would concur that the Welsh Government is doing the right thing by taking that forward, and I would have thought that, on issues such as zero-hours contracts, the same could have been done and should be done, and I would hope that that would be reflected in how you operate in the next five years here in this Assembly.

The dramatic rise in the number of zero-hours contracts in Wales lays bare the weakness of Labour’s record on protecting workers’ rights in Wales and is a strong indication that insecure and low-wage employment is becoming a bigger feature of the job market here in Wales.

We believe that the success and well-being of working people across Wales needs to be absolute if we want to improve our economy. We do not believe in the race to the bottom and we do not accept that our workers should be forced to live with financial insecurity. We call it an outrage when hard-working people in Wales cannot make ends meet because they have no idea whether or not they will get paid from one week to the next. We want to see a Wales where work is rewarded properly and fairly, where a working week or month provides enough for somebody to live on and the stability and reassurance to be able to plan ahead financially. We must begin by making these commitments here as an Assembly, and I urge Members to support our amendments here today.

I call on Russell George to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Russell George.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Delete points 2, 3 and 4 and replace with:

Notes that employment practices are rapidly changing, including an increase in zero hours contracts, self-employment and short-term ‘gig’ work.

Recognises the work carried out by the UK Government to clamp down on abuses in zero-hours contracts, including the banning of exclusivity clauses.

Welcomes the UK Government’s commissioning of the Taylor Review on Modern Employment Practices which will consider the implications of new forms of work on workers’ rights and responsibilities.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. I formally move the Welsh Conservative amendments in the name of Paul Davies, the objective of which is to recognise the extensive work that has been carried out by the UK Government into zero-hours contracts, a reality which has not been, of course, reflected in the motion.

I’d like to make some points and put some of the issues into perspective in this debate today. One thing to be acknowledged is that employment practices have rapidly changed, of course, in recent years and less than 3 per cent of the total workforce are on zero-hours contracts. Since 2010, employment has increased by almost 3 million; that’s something that I think everyone can celebrate. The leader of the house in the last debate, of course, this afternoon, pointed and celebrated that fact out. Now, three quarters of this rise has been in full-time employment; the number of people working full time has risen by 2 million since 2010. Of course, while not suitable for everyone, I would contend that zero-hours contracts do have a part to play in a modern, flexible labour market, because for a small proportion of the workforce, that may be the kind of contract that is right for them, if they want to structure their work around childcare or education, for example.

Now, on average, people on these contracts—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

Thank you. Would you agree, if you look at the data for those who are on zero-hours contracts, that many are taking two or three jobs and trying to operate on that basis, and a lot of them are not doing it out of choice—they’re doing it because it’s the only thing available to them?

I don’t think I would agree with that, because, on average, people on these contracts work an average of 25 hours a week. Nearly 70 per cent of those people don’t want more hours. So, that’s what I would say.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that these contracts can benefit, of course, both the employer and the employee. Now, that said, it is clearly important to make sure that those benefitting from the flexibility of these contracts are not exploited by unscrupulous employers. Of course I agree with that. I therefore welcome the fact that the UK Government has already taken action and is now reviewing whether employment rules have kept pace with changes to the economy, especially for those who do not have traditional employment relationships. In 2015 the UK Government legislated for change with regard to zero-hours contracts, and it’s now illegal, of course, for employers to include exclusivity clauses in these contracts. For me, I think that’s a welcome step that means that people have the freedom to look for and take other work opportunities and have more control over their working hours and income. Individuals on these contracts can also make a complaint to an employment tribunal if they want to as well, if the employer mistreats them in that regard, or for seeking work elsewhere.

Now, the independent Taylor review on modern employment practices under the leadership of the chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts and former senior Labour adviser, Matthew Taylor, is further considering zero-hours contracts and will assess whether our employment rules have kept pace with the changes in the economy, such as the growth in self-employment, on-demand working and the practice of contracting rather than hiring. So, I, of course, hope—I do hope—that it will make recommendations about how to maintain the employment flexibility, which is essential, I think, for a modern economy, whilst at the same time supporting job security, workplace rights and opportunities at the same time. I think that can be achieved. So, I believe that it’s right to look at how these contracts are used in practice, and if there is evidence of problems or abuse—address them. That would be my view, and that’s exactly what I think the Taylor review is doing, and I support that approach.

I very much welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate on working conditions and wages. The reason the Labour Party exists and was formed in the beginning was to defend workers against exploitation.

Times in terms of employment have changed, and for most workers, not for the better, over the last 40 years. In the 1970s, the expectation was for full-time, either waged or salaried employment in a job, if not for life, then until you wished to move on. Most large employers were fully unionised, with overtime rates at time-and-a-half and double time for Sundays, and if you had to work regular shifts, there was a shift supplement, generally in the order of 30 per cent of basic salary. It will probably come as a surprise to an awful lot of people working today that such conditions existed, certainly within the lifetime of many of them.

The Conservative Government, as well as destroying whole industries, also set about casualising the labour market. It was described as having a flexible workforce, but what it meant was poorer terms and conditions for the workforce. This, alongside the vicious attack on collective bargaining and the trade unions, has led to the employment conditions of today. Today, the world of work is very different to that of the 1970s, with the growth of not only zero-hours contracts or low guaranteed-hours contracts, but a large number of agency workers and self-employed subcontractors.

There are areas of the economy where each of those suits both employers and employees: for zero-hours contracts, things such as irregular sports events, such as people working behind the bar in the Liberty Stadium once a fortnight. Now, that’s obviously going to be irregular because they only play there once a fortnight. It would be unreasonable for anybody to expect that to be a full-time job—people to turn up for 35 hours, or even every Saturday, when there are only matches once a fortnight. But they are used far more than in places like that. Zero-hours contracts do work for that. And agency workers do fill a skill gap. In fact, agency workers used to be highly paid people in areas like engineering and computing, who went in and were paid substantial sums of money. Unfortunately, that’s changed. And self-employed subcontractors for short-term needs, and low guaranteed hours to fit in with caring responsibilities. Unfortunately, those are not the only reasons that the above contract types are used.

Zero-hours contracts, which offer no guaranteed minimum hours of work, can require a worker to be available for work at all times and give the employer total control over the amount of work each worker gets each week. This is a twenty-first century version of the dockers having to queue up to be called for work, except you don’t have to queue anymore, you have to wait for a text message instead. But it is effectively the same process of waiting for a call to work by your employer. Low guaranteed hours, which is very common in areas such as retail, of one hour a day over a five or six days, are very similar to zero-hours contracts, but everyone has to clock in, at 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock, so that the employer can decide how long they will be needed to work. This, in many respects, does cause even more problems that zero-hours contracts, because people don’t know how much money they’re going to earn each week, and that’s really causing huge problems—that’s part of the call on food banks, part of the call on everything. People one week will work 40 hours, the next week they’ll work their minimum six. You can’t live like that. It’s easy for people sat in here, who get their salary paid in every month, to not understand just how bad it is for those people who are living lives like this. Some days they’ll go in and work one hour, from eight to nine in the morning, and another day they’ll work eight until nine, but that will be nine at night. The cost of variable workloads, instead of being shared between the employer and the employee, is shared solely by the employee. Agency workers and self-employed subcontractors have the equivalent of zero-hours contracts, but without even minimum employment support. The above explains why the majority of people in poverty in Wales are also in work.

Can I just say, from 1 April 2016, the Conservative Government at Westminster renamed the minimum wage ‘the living wage’, and introduced a mandatory national living for workers aged 25 and over? I think it was basically done to confuse. Renaming the minimum wage as ‘the living wage’ when we already had a living wage. I’m very proud to wear the living wage badge in here today—the real living wage badge—and I just cannot understand why anybody would support people being paid less than it costs for them to live. I believe everyone should be paid a living wage, as defined by the Living Wage Foundation. I don’t believe it makes sense that the Government enforces a minimum wage that it itself knows is not enough for people to live on—

Will you take an intervention?

I’ve only got 17 seconds, I’m afraid, Darren. Our ambition for Wales must be to create a high-wage, high-skilled economy, and become a living wage country. That’s what we have to do. ‘We cannot afford it’ and ‘It will cost jobs’ have been the arguments against every progressive change from the abolition of slavery to the minimum wage.

I forgot to call an amendment, so better late than never, I call on the Minister for Skills and Science to propose formally the amendment 6 in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 6—Jane Hutt

Add as new points at end of motion:

Recognises the action the Welsh Government is taking to address the use of zero hours contracts in social care.

Welcomes the work of the Workforce Partnership Council in this area, which led to the publication of the Public Services Staff Commission’s principles and guidance on the appropriate use of non-guaranteed working hours arrangements in devolved public services in Wales.

Amendment 6 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Speaking as an Assembly Commissioner, I would like to make clear that there are no Commission staff on zero-hours contracts—that is a long-standing policy. The same applies to the staff directly employed by our contractors such as CBRE, Charlton House and TSS. In addition, the Commission specifies that employees must be paid at least the living wage, as recommended by the Living Wage Foundation, in our cleaning and catering contracts and equality clauses in our contract terms and conditions. In exceptional circumstances, our contractors might use third-party staff on zero-hours contracts. However, this is very much the exception rather than the rule.

As Commissioners, we all believe that we should be promoting and maintaining consistently high standards in our employment practices, both as an employer of our own staff and in entering into contracts. At a recent Commission meeting, Commissioners asked officials to look again at our approach to seeking assurance about supplier arrangements for employee terms and conditions, including via our subcontractors. As a result, we are introducing an extra clause to our terms and conditions, stipulating that we will work with contractors to monitor and ensure fair employment practices. Beyond this, Commission staff will be considering, on a contract-by-contract basis, what additional specific clauses to introduce to help protect and promote fair employment practices. Diolch yn fawr.

Last week I visited my local Royal Mail sorting office, and all the talk was about the way in which private companies are eating into the profitable parts of their business, while they continue to have an obligation to deliver the universal postal service. These predators have no obligation to meet the pay and conditions that Royal Mail workers have fought for over the years, and they are, unfortunately, exploiting the large numbers of desperate young unemployed people, offering employment packages far inferior to the Royal Mail counterparts. They are paid by the number of packages they get rid of, regardless of whether there’s anyone in or there’s a safe place to store the parcel. An undercover TNT deliverer explained that,

‘Denied any fixed hours of employment, I was forced to hustle for my next day's work on an almost daily basis. Sometimes I took a gamble to come in as a “relief worker”, arriving at the depot at 7.30am in the hope that someone would have dropped out so I could cover their rounds.’

Of course, if they didn’t get the work, they’d still be having to pay for their transport to get to the employment.

This is entirely reminiscent of the insecurity of dockworkers in the first half of the twentieth century, forced to compete with each other every day for the chance of work, with all the damaging impact this had on their family income and family life. Companies like Amazon are exploiting the universal delivery obligation to dump on the Royal Mail the least attractive delivery rounds, while, at the same time, cherry-picking the easiest, most concentrated delivery rounds, using the Royal Mail’s very own performance monitoring of the speed with which Amazon parcels have been delivered to identify the places where they can make an easy killing. You can be certain that all the Amazon delivery drivers will be on zero-hours contracts.

This, frankly, is an unsustainable business model for Royal Mail, and we should all worry that it will, eventually, lead to the undermining of the universal postal service obligation, which, as you may recall, ends in 2022. If we continue to have a society that only knows about the price of everything and the value of nothing, that is undoubtedly what will happen.

According to the Office for National Statistics, real wages have undergone the most prolonged fall in 70 years under this regime. Over 400,000 people over 25 years old have been on zero-hours contracts, according to them, with the same employer for more than 12 months. This level of insecurity, given the consistency with which they’ve been turning up at work, is completely unacceptable, in my view. The Resolution Foundation highlights that 93p per hour is the penalty for zero-hours workers doing the same work as those on permanent contracts. So, I would like to suggest that we have to remind ourselves that workers in the UK currently depend on EU legislation for many of their rights and protections at work. And although the UK Government has promised that such rights will be transferred into British law, we have to remind ourselves that the Conservatives opposed many of these hard-won rights and protections when they were first introduced and dismissed them as red tape.

Now, UKIP, who have proposed this motion, as Jeremy Miles has pointed out, have said, in the past, that they would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday overtime, redundancy or sick pay, and provide a statutory standard, very short-term employment contract template. That was in your small business manifesto in 2013, so I’d be very keen, in your summing up, to find out what is the extent of your Damascene conversion and—[Interruption.] Well, that was in—. Well, that’s—.

So, in response to Bethan Jenkins, I do not agree that it is only Plaid Cymru that proposed zero-hours contracts. I would remind you that, in the 2015 election, Labour promised employees a legal right to a regular contract after 12 weeks’ work. In August last year, Jeremy Corbyn had pledged to introduce the New Zealand-style laws that force employers to give workers guaranteed hours in a written contract. New Zealand shows what can be done, and the law forces employers to guarantee a minimum number of hours’ work each week, and workers can refuse extra hours without repercussions. That, of course, is not the state of zero-hours workers in this country. Cardiff Central, unfortunately, has the highest proportion of zero-hours workers anywhere in Wales. If people even contest the type of hours they’re doing, they are then turned down a shift or threatened with having hours taken away. This level of vulnerability and insecurity is causing major mental health problems, as well as genuine hardship, as people are simply unable to know whether or not their wages are going to be reliable, and whether they’re going to be able to pay the wages the following week. So, I think zero-hours contracts need to be abolished.

The issue of zero-hours contracts is a major one for many people in the job market in Wales; so, I welcome the debate brought forward today by my colleague David Rowlands. UKIP’s UK-wide policy, as outlined in the 2015 general election manifesto, is to end the abuse of zero-hours contracts. We do not call today for an outright ban as we recognise that some workers may benefit from them, but for the majority of workers these contracts do constitute a sort of insecurity and anxiety. So, we do need to examine if there is any way of tackling this issue through the Assembly.

A pertinent question in this regard is one of legal competence. Does any area of employment law rightly fall within the competence of the Assembly? Opinions do seem to vary on this point, but with the Welsh Government attempting to pilot the Trade Union (Wales) Bill through the Assembly currently, we will proceed today on the basis of the assurances that finance Minister Mark Drakeford has given: that the Assembly does have competence over public sector employment; although, in reality, that case may not be proven. So, if it is the case that the Assembly has competence in this field, then there is scope for legislation in this place on zero-hours contracts. We then have to establish the following: one, is there widespread abuse of zero-hours contracts by employers? Two, does this abuse take place in Wales and in the public sector? And three, what should we do to address this problem if it exists?

There was a survey carried out in 2013 by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—CIPD—which quizzed the employers regarding their use of zero-hours contracts. One in five respondents reported that they used zero-hours contracts—or ZHCs—to avoid costs to their own company, rather than to benefit the employee. There was also evidence that, once employment rights were strengthened for agency workers, employers began limiting their use of agency contracts in favour of greater use of ZHCs.

There is also evidence that this was happening in the public sector. In 2015, the Welsh Government brought out a research paper investigating the use of ZHCs in the public sector in Wales. It found that 56 per cent of public sector organisations were using ZHCs, although we were assured that the Welsh Government itself did not do so. Alas, 18 months later, that claim was disproved as BBC Wales revealed that night cleaners at Cathays Park were on ZHCs. This followed close on from a row over Monmouthshire County Council employing 320 people on ZHCs.

There is also the issue of companies that successfully tender for contracts with councils. Often, councils in Wales have policies whereby they don’t give out contracts to companies that use ZHCs, but often, this only applies to principal contractors. These principal contractors will routinely use subcontractors who, in many cases, do use ZHCs. So, this also needs to be examined. If the Welsh Government is going to defend trade union rights, as they are currently proposing, then perhaps they can also look again at the other side of the coin, which is workers unwillingly working in Wales, in the public sector, on zero-hours contracts. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this debate. I must start off by saying that I think it is ironic that UKIP has brought forward this debate. When you think of the huge significant improvements in pay equality, protection from discrimination, childcare, parental leave, care for pregnant women and care for new mothers that membership of the European Union has brought to us, and leaving the European Union will risk all those great gains, I do think it is very ironic that UKIP have brought forward this debate today.

I wanted to use the opportunity to look at the performance of the devolved public services in this area. It has been drawn to my attention that, in some of our arm’s-length bodies, there is a lot of use of what they call ‘pool hours’— being ‘in the pool’, or ‘on pool’, as the expression is used. I understand that, at the National Museum Wales, there are at least 40 members of staff who are in the pool, which is very similar to being on a zero-hours contract. I really wanted to highlight that here, because I know the Welsh Government has tried hard to tackle this sort of issue with the guidance that it has given, but I wanted to draw attention to some of the problems that this is causing. Because staff on such contracts are not entitled to any form of sick pay, despite the majority of staff being on at least part-time hours and others being on nearly full-time hours, and I’m told there is a culture of staff feeling that they’ve got to return to work soon after an illness because they’re worried about lack of pay, and also worried about job security and being seen as unreliable. I also understand that, on accepting a pool-hours contract, staff are supposed to be told that they can apply for a formal contract after three months. But I’d like to find out whether staff are actually being told that they are able to do this after three months, and whether they are told of any vacancies that are coming up. Because it seems that in some of the arm’s-length bodies there are so few people on full-time contracts that there are concerns about not having enough staff to do particular checks. The other big issue, I think, is that staff on pool contracts receive very little in the way of training, including—if you think about how important some of the training is—fire safety training.

I think it has already been said here generally about the huge problems that there are for people who are in such uncertainty, about the stress levels, and the inability to get a mortgage. I know that the Welsh Government has issued guidance to all devolved public services in Wales that does include staff being able to request a review of their working arrangements with a view to changing their contract if they have been working regular hours, for example, which can be as little as four hours per week over a continuous period of three months. In addition, this guidance says that staff should be allocated a named line manager, should be able to take annual leave and there should be clear procedures to let staff transition into permanent roles and/or apply for permanent vacancies where opportunities exist.

So, I do think it is very important. I know the Government is committed to pursuing this agenda in devolved public services, but I think it is important to find out if bodies that are funded from the public purse are following these guidelines, and are not relying more and more on members of staff who are in the pool. I wondered if there are mechanisms for the Government to check what is happening in such bodies. I’m sure that the Minister, when she gives her contribution, will say that it is a priority that the people who are working in devolved public services are treated fairly and equitably in the workplace.

In the written statement by the Welsh Government in December, the clear expectation was stressed that non-guaranteed-hours arrangements should only be used in clearly and narrowly defined circumstances, and their use should not be open-ended. Bearing in mind that the use of non-guaranteed hours may be ongoing at some of the public bodies we fund, I wondered if there should be a proposal to bring forward the review that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has said he intends to carry out in 2018, about whether the guidance of the Public Services Staff Commission is being implemented.

So, I wanted to use this opportunity to highlight these issues that may be there in these devolved bodies and hope that the Government can take a look and see what progress is being made. Thank you.

Zero-hours contracts, which I’ll call ZHCs, have been around for a long time, benefiting both employers and workers with their flexibility. However, since 2004, there’s been a huge increase in the number of ZHCs. So, why the increase?

An employer responding to new legislation is likely to ask, ‘Does it apply to me and, if so, how can I avoid it and how do I minimise its cost?’ Some remainers claim that only the EU will protect workers’ rights. Well, I have news for you: EU employment directives are subjected to years of consultation. In other words, lobbyists employed by industry work hard to incorporate exclusions and loopholes in them, such as qualifying periods. Qualifying periods in legislation merely lead to the termination of a worker’s employment before the end of that qualifying period.

We now have three categories of workers: employees, the self-employed and a third, intermediate construct, that of a worker, which is largely thanks to the EU—each with a wide range of rights accruing to their category. The category a worker falls into determines the extent of their rights. A big driver in the increase of ZHCs and abuses of employment contracts has been the desire of employers to minimise a worker’s chances of being deemed to be an employee. Another driver is for employers to ensure that any costs associated with the rights of non-employees are minimised.

The employment appeal tribunal is alive to this political issue and said, in 2007,

‘that armies of lawyers will simply place substitution clauses, or clauses denying any obligation to accept or provide work in employment contracts’.

Consequently, the employment appeal tribunal has said that it’s the reality of the working relationship that they will look at, not the contractual wording, because they’re alive to the fact that employers will merely alter the terms of their workers’ contracts in response to not just new legislation, but case law emanating from the tribunal and elsewhere. This may make life more difficult for employers, but their response to this is likely to be simply to work to the terms of the contract. Consequently, less secure and regular work is available, which is emblematic of the worst ZHCs.

The parties opposite may suggest more regulation, resulting in evermore complexity. The left will no doubt claim that the answer is simply to ban ZHCs or regulate them out of existence. Labour suggested in the Pickavance report of 2014 that legislation should be introduced banning employers from requiring workers to be available for work. This law would do nothing but encourage the employer to deny that a worker is an employee and consequently deny them their entitlements and rights. They also recommended that after a period of six months—which now seems to have been reduced to 12 weeks—on a ZHC, a worker should be entitled to a minimum-hours contract.

Now, I’m not going to criticise the motivation of the report and what the authors were trying to do—I’m sure they really did mean well. But, given how employers have reacted to various employment laws over the years, I think we can safely assume that, if the UK were to give a right to a minimum-hours contract after six months, say, few workers on ZHCs would be employed after that period. Similarly, stipulating—as recommended by the Pickavance report—that a resulting minimum-hours contract should be based on the regular worked hours only ensures that workers will be given even less regular work than they are now, during that first six-month period.

So, complicating an already complex system and making people ever more dependent on experts, whether they be in law firms or unions, may be good for those groups, but not for the people who are being exploited. We need to balance the benefits of ZHCs with the need for secure, reliable employment. Employers have been abusing their greater bargaining power, and workers’ bargaining powers are now non-existent, thanks to the ready supply of replacement staff provided by the unlimited immigration so beloved of the other parties.

Will you take an intervention?

No. We need employment laws that are simple and accessible—laws that don’t require a law degree to navigate them. We need a tribunal system that is accessible, simple and inexpensive. The Tory Act in the last Government to introduce substantially greater tribunal fees, where somebody wanting to make a claim for unfair dismissal is now having to pay £1,250 for the privilege of having their rights protected, is absolutely unacceptable. Young people should also come out of school understanding their basic legal rights and obligations as workers, tenants and customers.

The left have spent the last 40 years patting themselves on the back for introducing or supporting laws that help them fly a flag of compassion. Big business gets what it wants anyway and the people at the bottom with no bargaining power get to live with less secure employment and zero-hours contracts. No matter how well Labour and their fellow travellers think they’ve done by adding all of these laws to the statute book, it’s an illusion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the consequences of Labour and Conservative policies in the area of employment over the last 20 years, and their slavish devotion to the EU, can be seen in the exponential rise of ZHCs, low pay and poor conditions. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Skills and Science, Julie James.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank Members for their contributions today? As most speakers have noted eloquently, zero-hours contracts can place enormous pressure on individuals and their families. For those who earn a living on a zero-hours basis, the uncertainty, instability and insecurity under which they work can weigh very heavily on their lives.

I believe very firmly that organisations that rely on models of employment that pass risks on to individuals and their families in this way fail society and ultimately fail their own businesses as well, because people are what make a success of any enterprise, whether it’s a business in production or service, high-tech or administrative, or an organisation in the private or the public sectors. When individuals in any organisation or firm do not feel valued or respected, nobody wins—neither the individual nor the organisation.

As a Welsh Government, we have long recognised the pernicious effects of inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. It is why we have committed in our programme for government to limiting the use of zero-hours contracts across Wales together with other bad employment practices. We work closely with our trade union partners in raising awareness of the very clear benefits of trade unions for both firms and their employees. For individuals, the benefit of trade union membership is collective strength in standing up against poor employment practice. For a company, effective relationships with employees through recognising a trade union leads to a much more productive workforce.

Public procurement policy is a significant lever for the Welsh Government as we try to recognise responsible and ethical employment practices from businesses that deliver contracts for the Welsh public sector. We have already led the way across the UK by introducing procurement policy that supports the Welsh public sector to address unacceptable employment practices such as blacklisting and the use of umbrella agencies.

Will you give way? Why, given what you’re saying, does Wales have the highest percentage of employees not on permanent contracts amongst the UK nations and regions, according to the latest report from the Carnegie UK Trust?

If the Member would let me get to the end of my speech, he might find out.

We have already led the way across the UK by introducing procurement policy that supports the Welsh public sector to address unacceptable employment practices such as blacklisting and the use of umbrella agencies, as I just said.

Working with partners across the Welsh public sector, we are finalising a code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will launch at next week’s workforce partnership council. This will ensure that all public sector organisations are taking action to work with their suppliers to eradicate unlawful and unethical employment practices in public sector contracts, and to ensure that all workers at every stage of the supply chain are treated fairly.

In November of last year, we published public sector guidance on the appropriate use of non-guaranteed-hours contracts. This was developed and agreed through the work of the workforce partnership council and the Public Services Staff Commission. The guidance and principles set out clear expectations on practices that all public sector employers should adopt in order to ensure that non-guaranteed-hours arrangements are only used in clearly and narrowly defined circumstances in ways that benefit people as well as organisations. I thank Julie Morgan for highlighting a potential implementation issue in this regard, which I will certainly pursue.

Such contracts should ensure that people are able to accept or decline the work with no detriment. They should have access to the same pay and progression as full-time employees and to induction and training, as well as the opportunity to apply for internal vacancies as they arise. Our guidance makes clear that the use of such contracts should not be open ended. Staff must be able to request that their working arrangements are reviewed if they have been undertaking regular hours over a continuous period of time. We will keep these measures under review to ensure that our approach strikes the right balance between flexibility and protection of services.

I note the motion from UKIP today and the strong statements they have made condemning the impact that zero-hours contracts can have on individuals and their families. I also note their reprehensible connection of that with what they referred to as ‘mass uncontrolled immigration’. In fact, immigration in Wales at this time is just under 3 per cent, and I for one very much value the contribution that all the people who have come to Wales to live and make their lives can make, including, for example, the oncologist who saved my life during the last Assembly, and to whom I’m extremely grateful. I’m very glad that he came here to Wales to live and work.

I do think it’s important to point out that this is the same party that has voted against measures to combat precarious employment practices in the European Parliament and that this is the same party that has campaigned vigorously against the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, through which many of the most vital workers’ rights and protections have been secured. Despite today’s motion, I would remind everyone in this Chamber and across Wales that this is emphatically not the position they have taken in recent times.

We do agree with Plaid Cymru that there is a very particular issue in social care. Last year’s Plaid Cymru amendment to the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Bill sought to provide an outright ban on the use of zero-hours contracts in the provision of regulated services in social care. But, in reality, it would have fatally compromised the Bill, meaning its important reforms were lost for Wales. And making unnecessary challenges available is not a good strategy for Government. Any law relating to social care workers’ terms and conditions must have the clear intention of improving social welfare, which means there needs to be an evidence-based relationship between zero-hours contracts and the quality of social care provision. That is why the Government commissioned research from Manchester Metropolitan University on this issue, followed by a consultation on terms and conditions of employment in social care. There is a clear need to drive forward a change in behaviour away from those who see these contracts as the norm.

We have already made it clear that we will use regulations under the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 to influence the use of zero-hours contracts in domiciliary care. These will require domiciliary care providers to publish details of their use of zero-hours within the public annual returns required by the 2016 Act. Such an approach is likely to galvanise influence from the workforce, commissioners, service users and their families, allowing the use of zero-hours contracts only in ways that harmonise with the needs of workers and clients. However, requiring transparency does not in itself guarantee a change of behaviour, and some providers may continue to use zero-hours contracts in ways detrimental to staff and quality of care.

We are currently examining the case for other regulations through which we could reduce the use of zero-hours contracts, by limiting the proportion of care that can be provided through zero-hours contracts, or requiring providers to give workers a choice as to whether they’re employed on zero-hours contracts or fixed-hours contracts. We are also looking at how we can employ other measures to help improve the terms and conditions of the workforce, including increasing the separation between travel and call time, and reinforcing absolute compliance with the national minimum wage, all of which pursue further opportunities to establish domiciliary care as an attractive, supported and rewarding long-term career for the people of Wales.

Fairness is at the heart of the Welsh Government, and we are committed to building a prosperous and balanced economy that delivers social justice and opportunity for all the people of Wales. I welcome the opportunity to reiterate that, as a Government, we will continue to work tirelessly to eliminate poor employment practice in every part of Wales. Diolch.

I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate. David Rowlands.

Diolch, Lywydd. First of all, I want to take up two points, one by Julie Morgan and the other by Bethan Jenkins, when they said it’s ironic we should bring this debate to the Chamber. Well, it’s not ironic at all. We’re the only party in this Chamber that has consistently tried to protect British workers from exploitation, and this whole fact of the zero-hour contract shows that we were right in what we were trying to do.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. Can I just quote you from UKIP’s small business manifesto, published in 2013?

‘UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy and sick pay, and provide statutory standard very short employment contracts templates’.

Does the Member recognise that?

Yes, and I’m absolutely certain that if I went through any of the parties’ manifestos in this Chamber—every one of the parties—we would be able to punch huge holes in them as well. But anyway, back to—[Interruption.]

Allow the Member to continue.

Back to the debate, please, if we can. First of all, I’d like to take up with Russell George, who says that it helps some people that they would prefer to be in this type of zero-hours contract. The truth of the matter, actually, Russell, is that it’s the employer who usually sets the times and number of hours and not the employee unfortunately.

I want to take up with Jenny Rathbone, where she was talking about the postal offices. Well, Jenny, I want to remind you that it’s the European Union that insisted on Britain opening up postal services, and they’ve been very much exploited by German companies. It’s left the Post Office having to deliver letters to farms and outposts whilst German companies make fortunes out of delivering parcels in inner cities.

So, in bringing this motion to the Assembly, the UK Independence Party sought to draw not only the Assembly’s attention to this ever expanding problem but also the attention of the general public. We must use all the powers at our disposal to end this appalling system of employment. Only by highlighting these abuses will we be able to call employers to account. We must make it abundantly clear to those who wish to exploit workers’ rights in this way that we, in this Welsh Assembly, will not tolerate such actions.

Every worker, wherever he works and at whatever level, should have some security of employment with hours and conditions clearly laid out. We agree with Plaid Cymru that the use of zero-hours contracts in devolved public services should be banned and that any services procured by the Assembly should also be subject to such a ban, and we will therefore be supporting Plaid Cymru’s amendments 5 and 7, which cover this issue.

The absence of working entitlements and conditions are totally unacceptable in twenty-first century Britain, and I ask the parties in this Chamber to support this motion.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.