The first group of amendments relates to restriction on the deduction of union subscription from wages in the public sector. Amendment 1 is the lead amendment, and only amendment in this group, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the amendment and speak to the amendment—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 1 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 1. This amendment refers to restrictions on the deduction of union subscriptions from wages by employers. The UK Government has modernised the relationship between trade unions and their members. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, they have. [Interruption.] This amendment aims to give public sector workers the opportunity to make their payments through direct debit, and discourages the blanket use of check-off. By moving to reduce the use of check-off, the UK Government has brought greater transparency to employees. This makes it easier for them to choose whether or not to pay subscriptions and which union to join—it’s called choice.

As the UK legislation stands, nurses, teachers and civil servants are prevented from automatically paying trade union subscriptions from their wages. However, this Welsh Labour Government’s Bill seeks to encourage and retain this practice, which is now thoroughly outdated and quite unnecessary.

Llywydd, in the twenty-first century, public resources should not be used to support the collection of trade union subscriptions. The collection—[Interruption.] The collection of subscriptions should be undertaken by the trade unions directly and, indeed, many across the UK have switched already, with Unite, GMB, the Public and Commercial Services Union, Fire Brigades Union, and the University and College Union all urging their members to switch to direct debit. Further, many employees are routinely misled on the terms of joining a trade union when doing so via check-off. For example, the absence of information about the optional political levy. By ending this practice and encouraging payment through direct debit, employers are not only guaranteed easier transparency and ease in terms of choosing whether or not to pay subscriptions, but they are able to enjoy the full protection of the direct debit guarantee, which includes advance notification of any changes to the direct debit, and the ability to cancel it at any time. I move.

So, here we go again: same old Tories, fighting yesterday’s battles, with yesterday’s arguments, on yesterday’s issues, oblivious to the fact that the world has moved on from the anti-union rhetoric of the 1970s and the 1980s. It’s ironic, is it not, that on the day that Theresa May makes a desperate plea to other parties to help her out of the almighty mess that she’s made of Brexit through a monumental misjudgement in calling a general election, coupled with her gross overestimation of herself and her gross underestimation of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, the Welsh Tories are back here creating division and attacking workers’ representatives? It would appear that the general election result has done nothing to temper their in-built prejudice as they continue to support attacks on working people in Wales and those who support them.

Llywydd, as a trade union official, I spent most of my working life fighting attacks on workers’ rights and anti-trade union legislation. Being elected to this Assembly will not change that. I will continue to fight any attempts to try to turn the clock back on those rights. So, once again, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the progressive approach of Welsh Government in seeking to ensure that our public services here in Wales, and the dedicated, hard-working people who deliver those services, are not subjected to the vindictive and small-minded restrictions imposed by the UK Tory Government’s Trade Union Act 2016. I warmly congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford, in bringing forward the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, which I shall be supporting. I shall be opposing each of the amendments submitted in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders, including this first amendment, which would have the effect of imposing restrictions on employers’ DOCAS—deduction of contributions at source—arrangements. I’ll talk in more detail on that specific proposal in a while, but, for now, I have a few general observations that I want to make.

What the Tories really don’t like about the Trade Union (Wales) Bill is that it is a reflection of how successful social partnership working is here in Wales. It is a total anathema to them that Government and employers are able to both recognise and evidence the success of social partnership with trade unions in the delivery of key public services. If anything came out of the series of recent tragic events across the country, it is the amazing dedication of our public service staff in responding to those events, helping others, even when in doing so they exposed themselves to risk. With the possible exception of the Prime Minister, Conservative Ministers were actually quick in coming out to praise the work of those wonderful men and women, but they don’t see the irony of doing so at the same time as they’re seeking to undermine their rights at work.

Both the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee have given their support to this Bill, but it also has widespread support from outside the National Assembly. The Workforce Partnership Council and the council for economic development provide invaluable forums for Welsh Government and employers to engage with trade unions across a wide range of Government policies and wider social and economic issues. Employers’ representatives from a range of bodies, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Welsh Local Government Association and NHS Wales, come together as equal partners with trade unions and Welsh Government Ministers to work in social partnership.

The head of the WLGA, in giving evidence to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, said:

‘The WLGA has supported and embraced the concept of social partnership…we firmly recognise as employers that engaging with the workforce through the recognised trades unions played a significant part in ensuring that service continuity has been at the heart of some difficult decisions’.

So, all sides are able to recognise the benefit of a joint approach in negotiating agreements, addressing challenges, and resolving disagreements before they become disputes. So, everybody else gets it, but the Tories don’t.

It’s the approach of inclusivity and mutual respect involving trade unions that the Tories seem unwilling or unable to grasp. Or is it because they just don’t understand trade unions and they have an ingrained and ill-informed prejudice against them? Most likely, all of the above.

But let’s come back to the specifics of this first amendment. Its impact would be to make it more difficult for employers to provide DOCAS—deduction of contributions at source. I say that because the vast majority of employers in the public sector want to be able to have the ability to agree constructive check-off agreements with their recognised trade unions. But, of course, the real intention of the Tories is not to penalise employers, but to put barriers in the way of recruitment and retention of members by trade unions, making it more difficult for unions to collect their subscriptions. Necessary? No. Vindictive? Yes.

I’ve heard Tories argue that check-off operates in the public sector without the knowledge of individual trade union members. How ridiculous. That is absolute and total nonsense. Every individual member has to sign a membership form for the particular union that they are joining, so they are fully aware of which union they are joining. And as part of that application, they have to individually authorise any deduction from their pay, just as they would have to do for any other non-statutory deduction, such as, for example, a charity or a credit union.

But as I’ve said, it is often the employer who is supportive of such agreements. For instance, Flintshire County Council, again in evidence to the equality committee, said:

‘This is a beneficial business arrangement for all three parties. There is no practical reason to discontinue with the arrangement.’

And then the Tories say, as Janet Finch-Saunders said in her opening remarks, ‘What about the cost to the taxpayer of DOCAS arrangements?’ Well, in this day and age of modern automated pay systems, the cost of DOCAS arrangements is minimal, particularly when operated alongside similar deduction arrangements for things like childcare schemes, cycle-to-work schemes, credit union contributions, and charitable deductions. I don’t hear Tories clamouring for charges to apply to these. Well, let me tell the ill-informed that most unions in the public sector actually pay for the provision of this service. In NHS Wales, for example, this is around 2 per cent of all subscriptions collected—a significant amount of income generation for the employer.

Llywydd, this amendment serves no useful purpose, other than to attempt to frustrate union organisation, as a vindictive act against working people who choose to join a trade union, and I ask every Member to vote against it.

We had extensive scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill on the equality and local government committee earlier this year. Janet is moving the amendments today. I was interested to hear Janet’s comments on the Bill at the time, and I think it is sometimes good when there is a dissenting voice at the committee stage, because it does test the Government’s arguments. However, after hearing all the evidence, I was broadly supportive of the principles of the Bill in retaining the status quo in industrial relations in the public sector in Wales, and we in UKIP are today supporting the Bill. The amendments, in our view, largely seek to derail the Bill, so we will be voting against this particular amendment and, indeed, all of the amendments. Thank you.

I’ll be very brief—just simply to say it’s interesting that UKIP is not convinced by the Conservatives’ arguments. I think simply peddling the arguments out for a third serving doesn’t improve on them. This is such a cheap and simple process—deducting wages from source—as my colleague, Dawn Bowden has already said. This is no different than deducting the charitable donation or repayment of a loan for a bicycle or whatever it might be, and it’s all done by machine—it doesn’t cost anything. So, clearly the trade unions are making a charitable contribution to their employers. We had no evidence from any of the witnesses who we received evidence from, as part of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee scrutiny of this, and, in fact, the NHS employers organisation pointed out that it enabled employers to understand the number of members in any one union and to gain an understanding of the relative trade union membership across the organisation.

So, it seems to me that it both provides transparency and ease of transfer of the money. There’s nothing wrong with direct debit, but the reason why the trade unions are urging members to transfer to direct debit is because, in other parts of the UK, all members will be obliged to do that. So, it’s very difficult to see how, in Wales, we need to do that in our public sector when everybody, including all the employers, seem to be perfectly content to deduct union subs from source.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thank you for the chance to contribute in this, the latest round in this Government’s determination, and the determination of other Members of this Assembly, to resist the unwarranted intrusion of the UK Government into devolved responsibilities and to prevent their determination to foist their views of industrial relations onto this Assembly and onto the social partnership model, which has been so carefully crafted here in the devolution era.

The evidence from social partners on this group of amendments is absolutely clear: that putting limitation on check-off is unnecessary, that the cost to the public purse is negligible and that it unjustifiably singles out trade union membership subscriptions from other forms of payroll deductions. As you’ve heard from Dawn Bowden and others, apparently there is no difficulty for the Conservative Party in using this form of paying for sport club membership, from making donations to charity, for taking advantage of cycle-to-work schemes or for making subscriptions to a credit union. Uniquely, apparently, trade union membership is to be singled out as not to be available for this form of activity.

Llywydd, I first joined a trade union when I was 17 years old, so it’s going to be nearly 50 years before too long. In that time, I have paid trade union subscriptions in cash; I have written a cheque; I have taken advantage of payroll deductions, and, these days, I pay by direct debit. There is no inhibition whatsoever on trade union members in taking other forms of making their subscriptions. What this would do would be to place limits on their ability to use payroll deduction and for no good reason at all. Employers are not compelled to make payroll deduction available, neither are they compelled to provide it at no cost, and neither are trade unionists compelled to pay their subscriptions by this method. The amendment sets out to solve a problem that simply doesn’t exist.

This afternoon, Llywydd, I will rely regularly on the report that this Assembly’s Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee provided at the end of Stage 1—a report supported by seven of the eight members of that committee and which was the result of very careful evidence-taking that the committee brought together to scrutinise the Government’s proposal. This is what the committee said in relation to the deduction of trade union subscriptions:

‘we believe that the provisions in the 2016 Act’— the UK Act—

‘which seek to restrict check-off services are unnecessary and unwarranted. They also single out trade union subscriptions from other payments made by employers on behalf of employees. We see no valid reason to apply the provisions to devolved Welsh authorities in Wales. By destabilising the social partnership, the provisions may have an adverse impact on the effective delivery of public services in Wales.’

Members should reject this proposal.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Thank you. I think it’s fair to say it will be obvious to many that Labour cannot support any changes to the Bill for fear of upsetting their union paymasters. The 2017 election campaign is clear evidence of this, with £4 million out of £4.5 million in campaign donations in May coming directly from the unions. That’s 91 per cent, and I would call on those Members here today to declare the same interests that you did at committee stage. Let the people out there know just how you’ve done well out of the Labour unions.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government’s explanatory memorandum suggests that the cost of check-off is minimal and is unhelpfully accompanied by an unrelated table detailing the cost savings for the 40 per cent threshold. In reality, however, the annual cost to the UK taxpayer to help fund union payment is not insignificant. In March, as part of the House of Lords secondary legislation scrutiny committee on the draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2017, the Cabinet Office stated that the current cost to the public sector for the provision of check-off services is in the region of £12.5 million per year. At present, trade unions only provide an estimated £2.74 million for this service, so there is an additional uncollected cost to the taxpayer of £9.7 million per year. Now, if we take 5 per cent of this cost as coming from Wales, this is a cost to the Welsh public purse of £485,000 per year—almost £0.5 million.

This is a significant amount of money, but, again, those who have had large donations during election time might not think so, and something not acknowledged by either the Cabinet Secretary or many of those who gave evidence on this matter. Further, the UK Government has accepted the principle of allowing check-off to continue where the union meets the cost and where there is an agreement with the employer to do so. This seeks to allow a public sector employer to make deductions from its workers’ wages in respect of trade union subscriptions only if those workers have the option to pay their trade union subscriptions by other means, or if arrangements have been made for the union to make reasonable payments to the employer in respect of the making of the deductions.

This Bill undermines modern, flexible working patterns and harks back to an age of trade union manipulation, cynically underpinned by their links to the Labour Party. So, in conclusion, Llywydd, this amendment seeks only to ensure full transparency for employees, flexibility and protection in terms of paying subscriptions, and to make savings in the region of £0.5 million to the public purse in Wales, and I encourage and urge all Members to support it.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to an electronic vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 43 against. And, therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 1 not agreed: For 12, Against 43, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 1.