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.