Item 3 on the agenda is the debate on the general principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM6298 Mark Drakeford

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Hoffwn i ddechrau drwy ddiolch i Gadeiryddion y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol a’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol am eu gwaith wrth iddyn nhw graffu’n fanwl ar y Bil drwy gydol Cyfnod 1. Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd i Gadeirydd ac aelodau’r Pwyllgor Cyllid. Hoffwn i hefyd ddiolch i’r rhanddeiliaid a’r partneriaid cymdeithasol sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y broses graffu, gan roi tystiolaeth ysgrifenedig a llafar i’r pwyllgor, a chyfrannu at ein hymgynghoriad i ddefnyddio gweithwyr asiantaethau yn ystod gweithredu diwydiannol.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I set out the purposes of this Bill on introduction in January, and do not intend simply to go over the same ground this afternoon. In summary, the Bill will disapply a number of provisions in the UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, ensuring that they do not apply to devolved public services. These provisions include check-off, facility time and ballot thresholds. We do that in order to defend and promote the successful model of social partnership in Wales, carefully and consistently developed by successive Welsh Governments, involving three different political parties elected to the National Assembly since 1999.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me also place on record again that this Bill will be unaffected by the commencement of the Wales Act 2017 next year. This Bill has been introduced and will be enacted under the current devolution settlement. Provided the Bill has reached the end of Stage 1 by the time the Wales Act is commenced, it can proceed through this Assembly. Under the current timetable, this Bill, if it succeeds, will have not simply reached the end of Stage 1, but will have reached Royal Assent before the Wales Act comes into force.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in late March, I wrote to the committees with my decision to bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Stage 2 to prohibit the use of agency workers to cover industrial action in public services following consultation late last year. This additional information was intended to assist the relevant committees to scrutinise the legislative options in their deliberations, and I hope that our consultation process, flagging the prospective action in this area, was able to provide them with the scope for informed discussions with social partners about the proposals. I look forward to the scrutiny of this policy aspect of the Bill during the rest of the Assembly process.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there are only a small number of recommendations from either committee, and I’m therefore happy to provide a summary response to them in this debate, having written to both committees to address some of the more technical issues raised in their reports. First of all, can I say that I’m grateful for the overwhelming support from social partners, and from the ELGC committee in bringing this Bill forward? That committee’s report contained a single formal recommendation: for this Assembly to support the general principles of the Bill this afternoon. The committee also welcomed the commitment to bring forward a Stage 2 amendment, noting their belief that it would strengthen the Bill and would be entirely consistent with its stated purpose and intended effect. That recommendation reflects the overwhelming evidence, I believe, received by the committee, and I welcome very much its report.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee made three recommendations. The first asked that I explain in this debate why I had not included the proposed amendment to the Bill at an earlier stage, and I’m happy to do that, of course. The answer lies in the nature and timing of decision making at Westminster. The Government elected there in May of 2015 passed an Act against the advice of its own law officers, of the Welsh Government and of this National Assembly, which imposed arrangements on public services that are devolved to Wales. At every step in that process, our opposition was made known. My party, and others elected here, was elected with a manifesto commitment to bring legislation before the Assembly to reverse those changes.

Alongside their Bill proposals, in the summer of 2015, the UK Government also consulted separately on proposals to rescind regulation 7 of the employment agencies regulations, which prohibit employment agencies supplying agency workers to cover industrial action. At the point of the National Assembly elections in May of last year, no outcome of that consultation had been reported. Because the National Assembly had not, therefore, previously expressed a view on the matter, and because it was not set out in any manifesto, I decided that a separate consultation on this matter would be required. That consultation has concluded and my decision in relation to it has been made known to the committees. The two aspects will come together, should a Government amendment at Stage 2 succeed. And, as I noted earlier, the ELGC committee supported that approach.

Recommendations 2 and 3 of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report are about the power in section 2(2) of the Bill to make transitional and saving provisions. This power was included at the time of publication, because, at that point, it was not known how the UK Government would go about commencing its Trade Union Act 2016, which included similar powers. Sensibly, I think, we mirrored those powers in our own drafting. I said to the committee when I appeared before it that we will probably not need to make transitional provisions. Now that the relevant provisions in the UK Act are in force, we can see, indeed, that those powers will not be needed. As it is a power that is now without a purpose, I’m happy to say this afternoon that I will bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to remove it, and thus address the recommendations in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report.

Dirprwy Lywydd, mae llawer iawn mwy yn yr adroddiadau pwyllgor, ac rwyf wedi ymateb yn fy llythyrau at Gadeiryddion y pwyllgorau. Hoffwn ddiolch iddyn nhw unwaith eto am roi ystyriaeth fanwl i’r Bil yn ystod Cyfnod 1, ac am wneud hynny mewn ysbryd mor adeiladol. Er fy mod yn disgwyl i’r Bil achosi rhwyg rhwng y pleidiau yma yn y Siambr, yr hyn sy’n glir oddi wrth y dystiolaeth a gafwyd gan randdeiliaid a phartneriaid cymdeithasol yw bod consensws llethol o blaid y Bil.

Mae fy ymateb y prynhawn yma yn cael ei wneud yn ysbryd y consensws hwnnw, ac rwyf wedi mynd ati hefyd i ymdrin ag argymhellion y pwyllgorau gerbron yr Aelodau. Fel yr argymhellwyd gan y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol, rwy’n gofyn i’r Aelodau gymeradwyo’r Bil y prynhawn yma. Yn y ffordd yma, gallwn ni barhau i fynd i’r afael ag unrhyw faterion yn ymwneud â’r gweithlu drwy weithio ar sail partneriaeth gymdeithasol, gan ddarparu gwell gwasanaethau cyhoeddus i ddinasyddion Cymru. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. I’d like to thank all those who provided evidence to the committee to help inform its work, including those who took time out to attend our focus group discussions.

The UK Government’s Trade Union Bill, introduced at Westminster in 2015, aroused considerable controversy and heated debate. In carrying out our scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill, we consulted widely with stakeholders and sought a range of views, including those of organisations that publicly supported the UK Government’s legislation. We focused our efforts on testing the Welsh Government’s assertion that the provisions in the Trade Union Act that the Bill seeks to disapply would have an adverse impact on the social partnership in Wales, and on the effective delivery of devolved public services.

We find ourselves in the unusual position today of presenting a report that contains a single recommendation—that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. This recommendation, supported by seven out of eight committee members, is based on the overwhelming support for the Bill in the evidence we received. It is unusual for a committee not to be recommending amendments at Stage 1 scrutiny, but that is the case.

Technically speaking, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Bill is straightforward. It disapplies specific provisions of the 2016 Act to devolved Welsh authorities. It does what it needs to do simply and, we believe, effectively. The Bill itself is a short Bill of three sections. But we know that the length of a Bill is no marker for its importance, and this Bill is no exception. On the contrary, we heard that without this Bill, the 40 per cent ballot threshold, which is already in force in Wales, combined with the future changes to check-off and facility time, pose a real and imminent threat to social partnership.

It is this social partnership that respondents told us is essential to the management and delivery of public services in Wales, particularly in the face of continuing financial challenges and ongoing transformational change. It is this social partnership that, the NHS in Wales told us, had

‘supported the development of effective and mutually beneficial solutions to significant challenges’ that the service had addressed. It is this social partnership that, local government told us, had

‘played a significant part in ensuring that service continuity has been at the heart of some difficult decisions’ in recent years. It is unsurprising, then, that those organisations directly responsible for delivering services to our communities were keen for this social partnership to be preserved. They firmly believed that the Bill was needed to ensure this.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I will speak briefly about the Bill’s substantive provisions. There was widespread support in evidence for disapplying the restrictions in the 2016 Act on check-off. Respondents reported that check-off arrangements were well established, efficient, of benefit to all parties and were of minimal cost to employers. At best, restrictions are likely to be an inconvenience for trade unions and employers. At worst, they could result in the withdrawal of check-off, which could ultimately weaken density of union membership and hinder unions’ ability to operate effectively as social partners. The restrictions single out trade union subscriptions from other payments made by employers on behalf of employees. They are unnecessary, unwarranted and we see no valid reason to apply them to devolved authorities in Wales.

We heard that access to facility time is essential to enable trade union representatives not only to carry out their duties around individual representation and collective bargaining, but to engage in the wider public service improvement agenda. We also heard compelling evidence about the benefits of facility time and the associated potential cost savings. This leaves us in no doubt that facility time is a prudent investment in public services and should be viewed as such. If trade unions are to continue to operate effectively as social partners and to contribute to the improvement agenda, then the existing arrangements for facility time must be safeguarded.

It is clear that the crux of any successful partnership is a balance between partners. The 40 per cent ballot threshold will undoubtedly undermine the ability of trade unions to engage with employers as equal partners. The right to undertake industrial action is an important element in the principle of collective bargaining. Without this right, or, in the case of the 2016 Act, where this right is inhibited by means of the additional ballot threshold, it will be much more difficult for unions to negotiate on behalf of their members. We do not believe that this is in the best interest of partnership working. We heard about the very real danger that the additional threshold would lead to heightened industrial tensions and could inadvertently increase the likelihood and duration of industrial action.

Moving on to agency workers, Dirprwy Lywydd, we heard that a move by the UK Government to lift the existing ban on using agency workers as cover during industrial action would have a similar effect on the social partnership as the 40 per cent ballot threshold requirement. And so, we welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s commitment to amending the Bill to ensure that the prohibition continues, regardless of the outcome of the UK Government’s considerations on this issue.

In conclusion, we are in no doubt that the relevant provisions in the 2016 Act will all, to varying degrees, adversely impact on the social partnership and, in turn, on the continued delivery and improvement of devolved public services. In recognition of this, we support the general principles of the Bill and we recommend that Members here today do the same.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m grateful as well that I’m following my colleague, John Griffiths, who has covered in detail the policy context that his committee has considered. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has a much more narrow remit in looking at this Bill and I’m going to speak to that particular remit. Can I, in so doing, thank, as always, my fellow committee members for their very robust and diligent scrutiny of this small Bill, as it went forward, but very important Bill in the matters that we considered, and also thank the Cabinet Secretary for making himself available for quite robust questioning and also for his robust and considered answers?

We reported on this Bill on 7 April, and the report is available both in hard copy and online. I recommend it not only to Assembly Member colleagues but also to members of the public who are interested and other interested observers to the progress of this particular Bill.

When we reported on the Bill on 7 April, we made three recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary. I’ll go to those in detail but, before doing so, if I could quickly make some general remarks, which are important on the clarity of our consideration of this particular Bill. As with our scrutiny of all Bills, we consider matters relating to the competence of the National Assembly. However, in doing so, and as we state in our report, it is not our role to express a view on whether a Bill is within or outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Rather, it is to highlight any issues that Assembly Members may wish to take into account in deciding whether to agree to the general principles of the Bill or to table or support amendments during the later stages of scrutiny.

So, on this Bill, we explored the Llywydd’s statement on competence, which she is obliged to provide, with the Cabinet Secretary. As part of her statement, the Llywydd indicated that while the Bill was, in her opinion, within the Assembly’s competence, she noted that the issues were not straightforward and that her consideration was, in her words, a finely balanced one.

Now, our report highlights the evidence we took from the Cabinet Secretary and the questioning and the evidence we heard, and I hope that that will be helpful to Assembly Members in making their decisions on this Bill. But ultimately, any question about whether a Bill such as this falls within the legislative competence of this National Assembly could indeed ultimately be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide if the competence is duly challenged.

So, I turn now to our three recommendations. Our first recommendation relates to the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to table an amendment to the Bill at Stage 2 to prohibit the use of agency workers during strike action on Welsh public authorities. Now, our preference as a committee, as we state in the report, is that a provision of such policy significance should ideally have been included within the Bill on its introduction. Including the provision on its introduction would have allowed the Cabinet Secretary to take account of a committee report that explores and considers the views of stakeholders on the use of agency workers during strike action. Whilst we do acknowledge that the Welsh Government undertook its own consultation on this specific proposal, as the Cabinet Secretary has outlined today, such a consultation is a different process from a committee of the National Assembly engaging with the principles and the actual wording of a Bill as part 1 of the Stage 1 legislative scrutiny process.

So, our first recommendation sought an explanation from the Cabinet Secretary about why the Bill did not include a provision on its introduction about the use of agency workers during strike action, and, in a similar vein, we asked why the Bill could not have been the subject, perhaps, of a short delay to accommodate such a position. But I am very grateful today for the Cabinet Secretary’s detailed response and further explanation and justification. I note that, as we’ve just heard, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee—whether through serendipity or, otherwise, perfect planning, I don’t know—was able, indeed, to take evidence on this issue during its own Stage 1 scrutiny and incorporate it within that, including wide stakeholder engagement, and that is reassuring in terms of our first recommendation.

And the second and third recommendations we made relate to the single power contained in section 2 of the Bill to make subordinate legislation. And, as we've heard from the remarks of the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon, great reassurance on that, and I welcome the proposed changes to the Bill that the Cabinet Secretary has outlined this afternoon when he was on his feet. Our analysis of this Bill is very technical and very precise and narrow in its remit, but I do recommend to Assembly Members the report if it will help them in their consideration.

It is somewhat regrettable that I do feel the need to stand and fundamentally oppose the general principles of introducing this Bill through the National Assembly for Wales. I do so on behalf of the Welsh Conservative Assembly group, but also on behalf of our taxpayers in Wales. Last year, the UK Government Trade Union Act 2016 was passed by Royal Assent after considerable consultation and engagement with our front-line workers, trade unions and with a clear mandate from the voting population of our country. [Interruption.] It was in the manifesto. The UK Act sets out provisions on turnout and support for strike action, a transparent process for subscriptions, and the requirement that payroll deductions for subscriptions are only administered where the cost is not funded by the public. Now, the Trade Union (Wales) Bill seeks to disapply sections of that Act here in Wales.

Now, as the first piece of legislation introduced by the Welsh Labour Government this year, this Bill is considered unnecessary, burdensome and costly, and I think taxpayers will be dismayed to know the time and energy that's been put into this, and cost, which could have been put into developing an autism Bill for Wales, or legislating to address the many and significant failings of this Welsh Labour Government.

Openness and transparency over the actual cost of trade unions and public service workers undertaking union activities is essential.

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

No.

Ultimately, funding for this activity comes out of the public purse. The Taxpayers’ Alliance found that, in 2014, unions were provided with over 273,000 sq ft of office space by public sector organisations in the UK. The market value of such office space in Cardiff would be over £6.2 million, yet unions were charged just £307,000, meaning the taxpayer is actually subsidising union activity by millions of pounds. The UK Act required greater transparency on information relating to facility time, simply extending those requirements that already apply to the civil service. I believe that it is right that the Government monitor this to ensure it is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money, and that levels of facility time remain appropriate and necessary. Clearly, the intention is that efficiency savings will be made simply by virtue of the requirement to publish this information. The first relevant period starts on 1 April. Therefore, the first reports will be due by 31 July. It is concerning that the Welsh Labour Government do not think it would be prudent to wait to see the initial results of this element of the UK Act. Instead, here the Welsh Labour Government seem to be pushing ahead with little statistical evidence. The Cabinet Secretary is concerned that the 40 per cent threshold creates the potential for wildcat strikes—

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

I can’t.

[Continues.]—yet, we’ve been offered no firm evidence to support this assertion. Further, it is concerning to note that whilst those giving evidence in committee spoke of the apparent low cost of processing payroll deductions, not one could provide an actual figure for this. Prior to the UK Act, just 22 per cent of public sector organisations in the UK charge unions for this service despite another cost to the public purse. In local government alone in Wales, we know that over 30,570 employees pay subscriptions through payroll deductions. The combined cost of which cannot be insignificant. So, we welcome the UK Government’s actions to ensure that costs incurred by unions are covered by unions.

The UK Government legislation also recognises there are sectors in which industrial action has a wider impact on members of the public that is disproportionate and unfair. Allowing agency workers to cover striking workers will ensure that businesses and many of our vital services will be able to continue to operate to some extent. So, it is concerning to note that the Cabinet Secretary intends to include provision in this Bill to prohibit the use of agency workers as cover during industrial action involving devolved Welsh authorities.

Llywydd—Deputy—the Conservative-led UK Government is committed to transparent and clear Government legislation that does not cause undue administrative burden or create legal confusion for employers. We understand that regulations in relation to check-off and facility time will not include devolved Welsh public bodies within their scope until the Wales Act 2017 comes into force, and we know that the Wales Act will clarify that industrial relations are a reserved matter. The UK Government, I am confident, will act at the earliest possible opportunity following commencement of the Wales Act to ensure the protection of our public services. The introduction of this Bill is an insult to the people of Wales, who face far greater issues: a lack of GPs, poor transport, reduced classroom support for teachers, inaccessibility to life-preserving drugs and raised council tax.

Are you winding up please?

Yes.

The Welsh Conservatives fundamentally oppose the general principles of this Bill and we will be voting against this motion today. I ask other Members with any conscience to support that aim.

Thank you. Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Deputy Presiding Officer. I speak in this debate as somebody who is proud to have served working people in my previous role, working for a trade union, and is committed to continuing to do so in my role as Assembly Member. It also means that I come at this debate with a little bit more of an understanding perhaps than some of how the principles and practices of social partnership work within the public and private sector in Wales. We make a lot of this social partnership and doing things differently in Wales, and it’s not just for the sake of being different. I know about that clear red water we talked about many years ago, but it’s actually because it’s the right thing to do and it actually reaps rewards not just for workers and workplaces, but actually for our economy and for our society. To not bring in and repeal these elements will definitely have an adverse effect on the social partnership approach that we so value here in Wales. I think the Conservative spokesperson said it was in the Conservative manifesto. Well, actually, to repeal these elements was in the Welsh Labour manifesto that was voted on last year.

You didn’t get a majority.

We got more than you. [Laughter.]

I feel it’s necessary to stand up again in this debate to actually try and rebut some of the rhetoric and the misunderstanding about how trade unions work in practice. So, the first thing to touch on, and I’m sure other colleagues will, is the collection of subs through check-off. It is a pretty straightforward and accessible means of doing this and, actually, in the vast majority of cases, including my own local authority, the unions actually cover the cost of check-off and save the local authority money. For those employers where there is an agreement in place—mostly in local government—the arrangement actually generates income for the local authority, albeit a modest sum. So, it’s not necessarily to the financial detriment of the local authority. I couldn’t understand when my colleagues were trying to make an intervention—we hear a lot of opposition from the opposition about check-off for paying trade union subs, but we don’t hear the same fuss being made about the numerous other deductions being taken from employees’ salaries, when charges are levied like childcare vouchers, cycle-to-work schemes and even national insurance.

When it comes to facility time, I think that’s quite an easy target. We hear a lot of attacks on facility time, but trade union facility time provides staff with a way to voice their experiences, and puts a clear mechanism in place for resolving grievances and disputes, whether informally or through collective bargaining, before it escalates to a stage when actually it does then cost the employer money to step in and take control of the situation. Restrictions on facility time for local reps and the damage to social partnership will erode the work done by trade unions to improve equal opportunities practice, and remove the best protections employees currently have from discriminatory treatment.

Would you take an intervention?

Of course.

Would you agree with me, Hannah Blythyn, about the research by the University of Warwick and the comment made by Professor Kim Hoque who undertook that research, who said:

‘Overall, the evidence suggests that both full and part-time workplace union representatives help improve performance in the public sector and that managers widely recognise this to be the case.’

Absolutely, because, obviously, it provides a mechanism for these things to be resolved and to be talked through before they actually reach a stage when it actually places an extra burden on the management and on the organisation.

Just in closing, at lunchtime today it was my pleasure to step in and host an event to celebrate 10 years of the life-changing learning partnership between the Open University and the TUC in Wales. Before being elected for the first time last year, I spent the best part of a decade working in the trade union movement and I saw first-hand the difference that trade union learning makes to people’s lives, and the doors to development and workplace learning that this unlocks and the opportunities that it opens. In Wales, we continue to support initiatives such as the Wales Union Learning Fund, whilst in Westminster the Tories have taken an axe to this opportunity for working people’s chance to achieve. I think that highlights to me, contrary to what some people would like you to believe of the negative—that trade unions are this ogre, if you like—that, actually, trade unions have a positive role to play, and they bring benefits not just to the workplace but, actually, to our economy and to our society. I think this Bill rightly seeks to reverse elements of the Conservative legislation that relate to our devolved public services, and that would not only slice away at social partnership but also our very social fabric.

Plaid Cymru supports the principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and we also welcome the desire to introduce an amendment on the use of agency workers, although we do agree that it would, perhaps, have been better for it to have been included from the outset, as the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has stated.

This Bill, of course, will disapply aspects of the UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, and that Act was enacted in March of this year, undermining the rights of workers. Any attempt to safeguard those rights are to be welcomed, but ultimately, we in Wales need to have the full powers to defend and protect workers’ rights and to develop a fair way of collaborating between workers and the employers—a way that would reflect our values as a nation.

The Trade Union Act of 2016 is an unnecessary attack on workers’ rights. It will be far more difficult for workers to get pay rises, to stop job losses or to negotiate better working conditions in the workplace as a result of this Act. The Act makes it more difficult for unions to do their day-to-day work in dealing with problems in the workplace before they develop into disputes, and the Act actually limits protest, and that is a real problem for a crucial part of our democracy. It is difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that the Conservative Government is determined to weaken trade unions in order to attack workers’ rights, pay and working conditions.

Bargaining between the employer and the employee works, because both sides have power. That is why most negotiations end not in a strike, but in agreement or resolution, and such an approach helps union members and those who aren’t union members in the same way. That helps to maintain public services. Treating workers with dignity and respect leads to a workforce that is willing to put the public first, from the patients in our hospitals and those receiving care to those collecting our rubbish and dealing with our recycling. Treating the workforce with respect makes business sense. But the Trade Union Act 2016 has shifted the power, and it is now far too heavily biased in one direction.

This is the latest attempt by the Conservatives, in their long history of attacking workers’ rights—rights that are at even greater risk following the decision to leave the European Union. Over the 1980s and early 1990s, a number of pieces of legislation were passed, drawn up by the Conservative Government, attacking the trade unions and workers’ rights. These include the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. Now, Labour, between 1997 and 2010, had an opportunity to undo the work of the Conservatives, but that opportunity was not taken. In its manifesto for the general election in 1997, the Labour Party stated that key elements of trade union legislation of the 1980s would remain in place. So, the prohibition on picketing and most restrictions on ballots remain in place. It is true to say that an attempt was made, but a very weak attempt, to strengthen rights through the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the ensuing Act in 2004. But in terms of many of the important rights that were withdrawn from workers during the 1980s and early 1990s, when Labour had the opportunity to put them back in place, their efforts were weak, to say the least. There was no real attempt to roll back the damage done. There was no real attempt to safeguard workers from the ill-doings of the Conservatives.

The Welsh Government has to rush this Bill through now. Once the Wales Act is in place and enacted, then industrial relations will be specifically reserved to Westminster. The attempt of the Welsh Government to use the benefits of conferred powers will be scrapped by the UK Government, and that is the fundamental weakness of the Wales Act, and why we need another Wales Act as a matter of urgency. It’s political motives that are at work here, with the Conservatives in Westminster attempting to ensure a uniform and cruel policy across Wales, England and Scotland, ignoring the devolved competence of the Assembly as it currently stands, ignoring the fact that we are not uniform nations. That is, there is a power grab happening here.

The Wales Act is a mechanism to roll powers back from this National Assembly, reducing the scope of what we can do for the benefit of our people here in Wales. There is a very real risk that the Conservatives are planning to grab more powers back to the centre as a result of leaving the European Union—

Are you winding up, please?

Plaid Cymru will safeguard workers and public services in Wales, every step of the way. Thank you.

This Bill is about the kind of public services that we want to see in Wales. Do we want public services where collaboration is the mark of them, or do we want public services where that is ever harder? We, on these benches, want strong public services, effectively delivered, and fair employment. We believe in the social partnership model that we have heard so much of today, and I was struck by the number of employers responding positively to the inquiry by the Equalities and Local Government Committee advocating support of the Government’s position here, reversing the Tory legislation of last year.

Social partnership is not the absence of dispute. There are going to be plenty of disagreements, there are going to be differences of view, and, from time to time, there’ll be differences of priority. But it does offer a framework for managing disagreement effectively and with as little disruption as possible. But it isn’t just a way of managing disagreement. It’s also a way of managing change and delivery in the public services, generally in the public interest, and often that is about managing difficult change and adapting in partnership with other stakeholders.

But it’s incumbent on us also to look forward at some of the threats and pressures that public services will face, as a consequence of a political choice by Conservative Governments in Westminster to impose a regime of austerity. That, compounded by increasing demand, and the risk to the public sector workforce of the uncertainty around EU nationals are potentially a threat to the resilience of some public services, not just in Wales—across the UK. The answer to those profound challenges is more collaboration and not less. It’s not just about avoiding conflict; it’s also about a framework that encourages a creative dialogue about how we tackle some of those threats and pressures ahead. But the truth of the matter is that this legislation, the 2016 Conservative legislation, is a purely political move. Strike action in the UK has never been lower—it’s low in England; it’s even lower in Wales—and the political nature of the attack is clear when you look at some of the core provisions in the Act, making it harder for unions to organise in the workplace. And as we’ve heard, at a time when good employers are making it easier for employees to buy bicycles, join a gym, contribute to pensions, this Act actually makes it harder to do something as basic as pay your union subscription.

So, make no mistake about it. This Bill reverses a nakedly political attack by the Conservatives in Westminster—a Tory attack on working people’s right to organise, a Tory attack on collaborative public services, and a Tory attack on the very resilience of public services right across the UK. And I’ll be proud to support the Government’s Bill.

The Trade Union Bill that the Welsh Government has brought here to debate today is a piece of legislation that has been scrutinised at some length in the Equalities and Local Government Committee, of which I’m a member, as well as the constitutional committee, of which I’m not, so I can only talk about it from the side of the committee I am on.

We heard a lot of evidence, and a clear consensus did emerge on both the employers and the unions’ side in favour of this Bill. UKIP broadly supports this Bill as we believe it does further the cause of improving working conditions in Wales, which is a laudable aim. Of course, we should strive to improve working conditions for all workers, not just the ones in the public sector, who happen to be in trade unions. But there is no logical sense in deliberately worsening conditions for the public sector workers, and a worsening of conditions is what the Minister, Mark Drakeford, has told us will happen if the Conservative Government’s UK legislation is not repealed. Nearly all of the witness we heard in committee tended to concur with this view, including, notably, the employers themselves.

There was an issue over legal competence. Did the Assembly rightly have legal competence over employment practices in the Welsh public sector, or did competence rightly lie with Westminster? Well, the committee was assured by Mark Drakeford that there was a strong legal case that the competence lay here. So, we in UKIP have taken him in good faith, and we backed the Bill on that basis, although, ultimately, it may be the courts who decide who is right.

What wasn’t really mentioned in the committee stage and hasn’t really cropped up today was that the Conservatives’ UK Trade Union Act, passed last year, is all a bit of a red herring. The original intention behind the Act was to cut off some of the funding for the Labour Party from the unions. But because Theresa May wanted Labour support over Brexit, this part of the Bill was kept from the legislation eventually passed by Westminster. What we were left with was a series of quibbles over things like facility time, the check-off and the turn-out threshold for legal strike ballots. In our view, workers should have the legal right to strike if a ballot has been won, and should not be constrained by some arbitrarily set threshold. Facility time, probably, in general allows union reps to deal with worker management issues before they come to strikes—a point that Hannah Blythyn made when this subject was first debated, and she’s made effectively again today. Facility time, if it could be calculated, probably saves public money, and also, in this respect, aids the delivery of public services. What we don’t want to do now is waste time by endlessly trying to record, minute and calculate facility time. This would actually constitute a real waste of public money. The check-off is simply an automatic deduction from a worker’s salary—little difference, in essence, from any other deduction. Nobody from the employers’ side in the committee hearings expressed any desire to end or limit the check-off. So, in summary, we support the principle of workers’ rights, and we also support the effective delivery of public services. We think this Bill will aid both, so we support the general principles of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m proud to speak today in support of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill. I applaud the prompt way that the Cabinet Secretary has brought forward this legislation to protect the rights of workers in Wales. In stark contrast to the approach of the UK Government, it is the Welsh Government that has shown the strong and stable leadership that Wales needs. The UK Government’s approach has been draconian and divisive. The UK Government has not only tried to affect the way trade unions work, undermining their ability to represent their members; they’ve also made an attack on the devolution settlement itself, trying to unpick the powers devolved to Wales.

Prior to being elected in May of last year, I taught in a secondary school in Caerphilly. As such, I was employed in one of those important public services that the UK Government’s Bill was aimed at, despite control over education being a key part of the devolved settlement from the word go. What were the implications of the UK Government’s regressive anti trade union Bill for me and my colleagues? Firstly, section 3 would have placed a threshold on our ability to vote for strike action. For all workers, strike action is the last resort—the final chance to stand up for workers’ rights. As we saw in the case of junior doctors in England, the Conservatives are intent on eroding and corroding the rights of public sector workers to an extent even Thatcher could not dream of. But at the same time as the UK Government limits the right to strike, they make no attempt to push similarly undemocratic quotas on other types of election. As always with the Conservatives, it’s one rule for one, and one rule for another.

Secondly, sections 13 and 14 would have aimed to undermine the principles of facility time. Trade unions represent their members on a regular basis in disputes where employees need help and in meetings with management on a range of issues. The ability of trade union stewards to do this and to keep their members informed would have been curtailed. Workers would be less well represented; union powers reduced.

Thirdly, section 15 would have equally threatened the viability of unions. The reduction in payment of at-source subs is a blow clearly aimed at the ability of unions to function. The purpose of the UK Government in this is clear: trade union membership could be limited. Trade union time and resources would be wasted in chasing after the payment of subscriptions.

All four sections would have threatened not just the ability and the viability of my union to represent me and my former career, they would have threatened the ability of public sector unions to represent public sector workers across Wales. As around three out of 10 Welsh workers are employed in the public sector, the impact of the UK Government’s legislation was considerable. Furthermore the UK Government’s vindictive approach would have been based on trampling over the devolution settlement and the powers of this body. This is not acceptable and does not augur well ahead of the return of powers from the European Union.

I followed with great interest the Stage 1 inquiry by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee into the Welsh Government’s proposed Bill, and would like to pay tribute to the Chair and committee members for this useful piece of evidence. What struck me was the overwhelming support for the Bill’s general principles. This came not just from those we would expect to back the Bill, like the trade unions, it also came from evidence supplied on behalf of professional associations and, crucially, public sector employers. All these voices were joined in a chorus of approval for the Bill. A chorus that proclaimed that the stubborn dogmatism of the UK Government was intent on overturning the principles of social partnership on which successive Welsh Governments have based their approach to industrial relations. What is more, the committee heard that the UK Government plans would not only wreck the doctrine, but also should partners have an equal stake in the delivery of services, their plans would also impact on the delivery of those public services themselves. As the Society of Radiographers said, the impact of the UK Government’s changes would make it

‘more difficult for our members to put patients first’ and would ‘adversely affect patient care’.

I look forward to supporting the Welsh Government’s Bill, and, in doing so, supporting public sector workers and public services today.

Thank you very much, and I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. As you’ve heard, there is strong support for the Bill in the Assembly this afternoon. I thank John Griffiths for what I thought was a succinct summary of the evidence that his committee took. In each aspect of the Bill, there was overwhelming support, as he said, from stakeholders for a simple and effective Bill. Members have heard from Gareth Bennett, who sat through the evidence and who was convinced enough by it to sign up to that simple, clear conclusion of the committee that the Bill should be supported.

Wrth gwrs, rydw i’n cydnabod cefnogaeth Plaid Cymru, fel roedd Sian Gwenllian yn ei ddweud, i’n helpu ni i ddiogelu hawliau gweithwyr yma yng Nghymru ac i roi tegwch yn y gweithlu i bobl sy’n gweithio yn ein gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yma yng Nghymru.

Dirprwy Lywydd, you heard from other Members here explaining that the purpose of this Bill is to support the success we have had in Wales in developing a social partnership approach. Jeremy Miles was absolutely right when he said that the social partnership approach is not about the absence of dispute; it is about the much, much harder work of facing up to challenges, to get round the table together, to think through, to talk through, to argue through and, in the end, to reach an agreement on a way forward where the problem itself is difficult and where the solution is not easy to find, but social partnership demands that you do that hard work, rather than, as in the way that we’ve heard from the Conservatives here this afternoon—they would rather retreat behind the barricades of a socially divisive confrontation of an adversarial approach to the conduct of industrial relations.

What this Bill does, Dirprwy Lywydd, quite certainly, is that it exposes the Conservative Party here in Wales. It exposes them as the reactionary force they are when it comes to social partnership. There is a Pavlovian response—there is a Pavlovian response from the Welsh Conservative Party. You mention the words ‘trade unions’, and they immediately begin to salivate over battles long ago. Time after time, in this Chamber, I’ve had to listen to Conservative Party Members talk about the heroic efforts of public service workers here in Wales, while they seek to condemn the services that those people provide, yet when those people turn out to be trade unionists, they go from being heroes of public service to people against whom the public at large have to be guarded against the dangers that they pose. Well, that is an argument that will not pass muster on the floor of this Assembly.

The second reason why the Bill exposes the Conservative Party, and I thought this was an authentically shocking part of the one contribution we heard from the Conservative Party, is that it exposes them on the devolution issue as well. This is a Bill that is being taken through the democratically elected forum of Wales. It is a Bill that seeks to do things in our public services in the way in which we in Wales would choose to organise our affairs, and yet the Conservative Party is willing to wave the stick of a Westminster Government prepared to reverse the democratic will of this National Assembly. I think there will be a democratic outrage, should it take place, and I’m very disappointed and saddened to hear it being suggested on the floor of the National Assembly this afternoon. Instead, this small, but important Bill will do things in the way that we want to do them here in Wales—a way that we know is effective; a way that we know will save money, will stop strikes, will protect the public and will improve our public services because it will use the enormous reservoir of goodwill and effective action that trade unionists in all parts of our public services bring to the work that they do, making the contribution they make: a contribution recognised by employers, recognised by social partners, recognised by other parties here in the Chamber this afternoon, and I hope will be reflected in the vote that we will hold on it.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, thank you. I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.