3. What assessment has the Government made of the constitutional implications of the UK Government's plans to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017? OQ58310

Thank you for the question. The UK Government’s announcement of its intention to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 is yet another example of its contempt for the devolution settlement, its disrespect for this democratically elected Senedd, and its flagrant disregard for the rights of workers in Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for that response. This legislature is supposed to be sovereign in specific areas. Rightly or wrongly, it should be our choice in our national Senedd to legislate and to make some rules and regulations. I'm pleased that our Senedd did pass legislation to protect our trade union members, but of course, like with any other Welsh legislation, the continuation of this legislation is reliant on the goodwill of Westminster, and, as we've seen, there isn't much goodwill to be seen there.

Whilst I don't doubt the sincerity of your First Minister and party in bringing forward the legislation, don't you think that it's unsustainable to say that the only way of ensuring the continuation of this Act, and others, is to wait until Labour are in power once again in Westminster? The Conservatives have been in power in Westminster for 70 years out of the last 100, and so, statistically, there isn't much assurance there. Wouldn't it be better to push for independence for Wales, in order to guarantee these rights and to secure further rights for the workforce of Wales?

Thank you for the question, and part of it I certainly agree with. The legislation that we passed—the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—of course went through all the correct processes in this Chamber. And of course, once legislation is passed here, it has to be endorsed, or there is a time period within which the UK Government can challenge its competence. Now, the UK Government, we had a letter from the Solicitor General at that time, which basically said the UK Government did not intend to challenge the competence of it. So, the UK Government was clearly accepting that when that legislation was passed, it was within our competence. I do not think it is appropriate at all then, when there have been further constitutional changes when the Government of Wales Act 2017 came into force, to somehow see that that is a mandate to actually trawl through and to overturn democratically passed legislation that has had the endorsement and consent of Her Majesty the Queen.

Now, at the moment, the regulations that are proposed to be tabled imminently by the UK Government with regard to agency workers do not overturn our legislation and cannot overturn it. The supremacy of our primary legislation is beyond that. What has happened is that there has been an indication that they would want to do that to ensure that the legislation in England is the same as in Wales. Well, if that happens, then the Welsh Government would firmly resist any attempt to do so. To bring forward primary legislation in this way, without giving us any notification that that was the intention—and we've dealt with the disrespect part of it—you would need to actually show there was some purpose to that primary legislation and all the costs that were involved. In fact, there is no evidential base whatsoever that would justify overturning that legislation. In fact, all the evidential information that we do have is that it would actually damage social partnership; it would undermine good relations and the social partnership policy that we have, and, therefore, would serve no purpose whatsoever.

I do welcome the comments that were made earlier. This is a matter that, I think, perhaps when taken out of the political arena, when wiser heads think about it, they would come to the view that this really serves no purpose whatsoever. It would achieve absolutely nothing; in fact, it would probably be damaging, and I really do wonder whether it is a matter that the UK Government really would want to proceed with. 

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

As you said, it's a choice, isn't it? It's a choice of the Tory Government, which is now in disarray—it can't even agree with itself—to disallow those things within the Wales TUC Act that we currently allow. And one of those things, of course, that is permitted, is the paid-for facility time, which is advantageous to both those people being represented and those companies who employ people. It very often results in very early resolutions rather than escalation of issues that people feel that they need representation on. And, very often, very simple things that can be resolved at an early stage—things like health and safety, pay negotiations. In other words, talking to each other and representing both sides. 

We've seen, by what the UK Government haven't done with regards the latest round of industrial action that has happened with train drivers, they've actually driven it the other way. Now, we don't want to see that sort of outcome here in Wales, which is why we've put it—

Joyce, can you ask your question, please?

My question is, to you, Counsel General: therefore, do you think that it would be unwise for the UK Government to try and take that action here in Wales and cause all that mayhem?

Well, listen, I agree with all the points that you've made. And I'd make this point as well: much of the legislation that has come into place, which is to do with facility time, is legislation that is agreed to be sound and purposeful across political parties. There have been many Conservative spokespersons who've recongised the importance of that. And if you think about it with an employer, in terms of when you have a large number of employees that you have to engage with, having representatives who can speak on behalf of the workforce, who can deal with the issues, the disciplinary issues and so on, who can deal with all the complexities of health and safety, and who can deal with all the various negotiations that take place, if you don't have that, you actually have quite a dysfunctional company. My concern is that the move to the legislation would not only undermine social partnership, but would actually contribute to that dysfunction within workplaces. It is not a good thing for employers. This is not just about things that are good for trade unions, and so on; this is actually good for industrial, modern, twenty-first century practice.