Part of 2. Questions to the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution – in the Senedd at 2:39 pm on 6 July 2022.
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.