Therefore, the next group of amendments is group 4. This group relates to prohibition on using temporary workers to cover industrial action. Amendment 6 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 6 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Thank you. I move amendment 6. This amendment seeks to allow employers the freedom to employ agency workers to cover strike action. I’ve already discussed the significant impact on daily life to many members of the public that strikes can cause: having to take a day off work to look after children if a school is closed, for example.

Further to amendment 3, clearly, we do only want to see strikes occurring as a result of clear democratic decisions and we want to tackle the disproportionate impact that any strike could have. The UK Government intends to remove regulation 7 from the conduct regulations to ensure that, while strike action remains a viable and effective option in such a situation if it gains the appropriate support, it will not have a negative impact on the economy and day-to-day lives of our hard-working members of the public.

This amendment seeks to give the recruitment sector the opportunity to help public organisations and employers to limit the impact to the wider economy and society of strike action by ensuring that services can continue to operate to some extent. I move.

So, once again, we’re faced with an amendment proposed that is about as predictable as it is ill-conceived, much like the previous three amendments. As I’ve said before, Llywydd, no trade union or its members lightly or enthusiastically embrace the need to take industrial action, but what you can be equally certain of is that no trade union official or member wants any dispute to drag on unnecessarily, and nor, of course, does any employer want that.

Llywydd, for trade unions, strike action, as I’ve said, is always the last resort. It’s a mechanism that more often than not will bring home to an employer that they are faced with a very real issue that they need to work with the trade unions to address. A protracted dispute will, of course, adversely affect an employer’s business, but it’s equally in the interest of the trade unions to address the issue in dispute as speedily as possible. It is neither in the interest of the union or its members to have members facing the financial hardship, which inevitably arises through loss of earnings whilst on strike. It is this mutual and equal interest that drives both parties to move towards settlement as soon as possible.

Where this balance is distorted, as would be the case if this amendment were to be passed, the incentive for an early resolution of the dispute would be removed, i.e. the dispute is not impacting on the employer, so the employer is less likely to engage constructively with the union to find a resolution to the dispute, which then turns into a protracted war of attrition.

What every employment relations professional understands, and what the Tories evidently don’t, is that in almost every case, there ultimately has to be a settlement of the dispute and a key component of any settlement was to always be how the parties intend working together in the future. This, of course, becomes much more of a challenge where a dispute has been a protracted one, as would inevitably be the consequence of the use of agency workers to strike break. So, from a basic industrial relations perspective, the amendment is just crazy, but there are further reasons for which I will be opposing it today.

The World Employment Confederation has recommended that agency workers should not be used to replace striking workers and in the UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which represents agency employers said, in respect of the UK Government’s proposals in this area,

‘we are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients’.

Finally, there are real concerns that putting inexperienced agency workers, in far greater numbers, into roles usually performed by a well-trained, experienced and professional workforce could seriously compromise both health and safety and standards of service. So, for the final time today, Llywydd, I will observe that we have a Tory party, driven by anti-trade-union prejudice, proposing legislation which flies in the face of opinion of professionals in the employment-relations field, and, therefore, I shall be voting against these amendments, along with the others submitted in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders.

I’d like to make a few general comments before going into detail on group 4. Plaid Cymru is supportive of this Bill introduced by Labour, but we wish to note that the Blair or Brown Governments didn’t take the opportunitiy to scrap many of those policies introduced by Thatcher—measures that continue to undermine the rights of workers to this day. It’s important that we bear that in mind I think.

In moving to group 4, Plaid Cymru will be voting against these amendments introduced in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. I was pleased to support a Government amendment during Stage 2 proceedings on this Bill that would ensure that there would be a prohibition on using temporary workers to cover staff during industrial action. Often, agency staff won’t be familiar with the procedures in workplaces, and that raises concerns about safety and the quality of the service provided to the public. Using agency staff to replace people taking part in industrial action can damage the relationship between the employees and the employers, and between the employees and the agency staff as well.

The proposals of the UK Government have been strongly criticised from within the agency sector itself, as we heard from Dawn Bowden, with the head of policy for the Recruitment and Employment Confederation very suspicious of placing temporary and agency workers into difficult industrial relations situations, and advising, indeed, that that wasn’t beneficial to members of the alliance. That’s just one argument for rejecting these amendments.

I want to use some quotes here from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers union. I want to use them particularly because they’re not party affiliated, so that the obvious can’t come back from the other side. And they actually do state in their evidence that the use of agency workers in the public sector comes at an extremely high risk, and that it undermines the right of hard-working, taxpaying workers to exercise their right to withdraw their labour after fulfilling all the obligations that are already in place, and I think that is something that really hasn’t been spelt out here today. It almost seems that the Conservatives are trying to give the impression that people can just go on strike, and that people do just go on strike. They seem to also have forgotten a point that was made just now by my colleague Dawn Bowden: that the strike action costs those people who are employed within those industries, that they are losing their wages, and that people don’t want to come to the table, withdrawing their labour—which they have every right to do, having gone through due procedure—just simply on a whim.

It’s also worth noting that the majority of people who do deliver excellent services in the workplace that is the public sector are women, and it is women who will be disproportionately affected by the changes that are proposed by this trade union Bill. It’s also worth noting that the Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee deemed the measures not fit for purpose, and that no full impact assessment of the trade union Bill had been made. I think it’s worth noting those things.

And I would ask the Cabinet Secretary, because there has been some confusion on the understanding of the words ‘agency workers’, to clarify for the record that we’re not talking about not allowing existing agency workers who already are used within the public sector—mostly, it has to be said, within the health sector—from coming into work like they would have under normal circumstances, but we are talking about, here, agency workers who are brought in for the specific purpose of breaking a strike.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I was very grateful to the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee for allowing the committee, during its Stage 1 evidence taking, to take views from contributors on the consultation that the Government had carried out at that time on the use of agency workers, and for the very clear support that the committee gave in their Stage 1 report for an amendment to be brought forward at Stage 2 to make it clear that here in Wales the circumstances that appertain today in which it is not possible to use agency workers to break strike action—that that would continue to be the position here in Wales.

Let me, for the record, clear up the point that Joyce Watson raised: the provisions of this Bill will not affect arrangements such as nurse bank arrangements, where nurses and healthcare support workers provide temporary cover as a result of staff absences, shortages or short-term unfilled vacancies. Those people are not agency workers, and they would not be affected by this provision.

Let me be clear as well, Llywydd, that I do not agree with the proposition that the mover of this amendment put to the Assembly in opening this group of amendments. I believe that what I heard Janet Finch-Saunders say was that by passing this group of amendments, the Assembly would be offering freedom to employers to utilise agency workers during strike action. Now, let me be clear that were these amendments to be passed, it would remove section 2, a key part of the Bill. It would fly in the face of the consultation that was carried out. It would overturn the clear view of the committee at Stage 2, but it would not allow Welsh authorities to use agency workers to cover industrial action. And that is because, while the UK Government consulted on removing regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Businesses and Employment Agency Regulations 2003, they have not acted on that consultation. So, I do think it's very important for the mover to clear up this matter for the benefit of the Assembly this afternoon.

If these amendments were passed, the state of the law would remain as it has been for a number of decades, because regulation 7 still remains in place. So, the effect of passing these amendments would not be, I believe, to provide freedom to employers to use agency workers in the case of strike action here in Wales. The status quo would prevail—the status quo that has been sufficient for successive Conservative Governments at Westminster, and the status quo that our consultation here in Wales showed that trade unions and employers were keen to see preserved.

And to respond to the debate, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you. Of course, it remains that there are sectors in which industrial action has a wider impact on members of the public that is disproportionate and unfair. Strikes can prevent people from getting to work and earning their own living and prevent businesses from managing their workforces effectively. For instance, strikes in important public services such as education will mean some parents of school-age children will need to look after their children rather than go to work because some schools would simply not be able to fulfil their duty of care to their pupils during the strike. This would also have a negative impact on some employers of the parents affected, whose workforce and productivity would be affected. Similarly, if postal workers were to strike, individuals and employers reliant on postal services would be placed at a disadvantage due to the resulting large backlog of deliveries. This Bill, unamended, will deny the recruitment sector the opportunity to help employers limit the impact on the wider economy and society of strike action by ensuring that businesses can continue to operate to some extent.

The UK Government has consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including employment agencies, employment businesses, employers, labour providers, trade bodies, employees, individuals who use the recruitment sector to find work, and the public, all of whom are affected by industrial action. This feedback is currently being analysed and will be considered in the context of wider industrial relations legislation and interests. A modern, dynamic—

Will you take an intervention?

No. Sorry, Dawn—yes, whoever. A modern, dynamic workforce needs flexibility to drive economic change. The UK Act is mindful of this. The Welsh version shifts focus away from value for money and back into the trade unions. I move.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 42 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 6 not agreed: For 12, Against 42, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 6.

Amendment 7, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Not moved.

Amendment 7 (Janet Finch-Saunders) not moved.