The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, and amendment 2 in the name of Lesley Griffiths. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

The next item, therefore, is the Plaid Cymru debate on industrial relations, and I call on Luke Fletcher to move the motion. Luke Fletcher. 

Motion NDM8210 Siân Gwenllian

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Expresses solidarity with public sector workers throughout Wales who are undertaking industrial action in response to years of real-term cuts to their wages.

2. Believes that the ability of workers to undertake strike action to improve their pay and conditions is a fundamental democratic right.

3. Believes that the UK Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is a full-frontal attack on working people and the trade unions they organise within.

4. Regrets that the Bill would give the UK Government significant coercive power to curtail trade unions' and workers' ability to engage in lawful industrial action.

5. Regrets that the Bill also conflicts with the aims of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement Bill, particularly the commitment of making Wales a fair work nation.

6. Supports all trade unions and public sector workers in their efforts to resist the Bill.

7. Calls on the Welsh Government to open discussions around the devolution of employment law to secure the collective rights and bargaining powers of workers in Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Let's be clear, from the onset, the UK Government's Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is nothing more than an attack on working class people, not just in Wales but across the UK. A draconian, fascistic attempt to erode the fundamental rights of workers and the trade unions that represent them, and we all know why this is happening.

The past year has seen workers in all sectors reject the politics of austerity, reject stagnant and real-terms cuts to wages, reject attacks on working conditions and reject the idea that this is as good as it gets. And in crippling fear of that, those at the top, aided by their willing partners in the Tory party, are now looking to put us back in our place. Well, good luck, because class solidarity is back, and we have a hell of a lot of catching up to do. In the face of a common struggle, workers up and down the country refuse to be divided by where they're from, what job they do, what they look like, and we, as a Senedd, must play our part in strengthening that struggle and empowering working people against the tides of Tory tyranny. No worker, no person deserves to be left using a foodbank, deserves to be left poring over every single pound and penny to decide if they can afford to heat their homes while companies are raking in profits on an astronomical scale. 

But before we get into the implications of the Bill and how we should respond to it here in Wales, it's worth reminding ourselves of the circumstances that gave rise to this. This is coming off the back of crisis after crisis: the 2008 crash, then the austerity that followed, then the pandemic, and now the cost-of-living crisis. We are in the midst of a perfect storm of soaring energy prices, high inflation and a new wave of Tory-driven austerity that is pummeling our public finances.

Meanwhile, the public sector workforce has had to put up with over a decade of squeezed wages, with average public sector pay in Wales being 4 per cent lower in real terms compared to 2010. In some professions, such as nursing and teaching, the picture is even more grim—nurses' salaries down at least 20 per cent in real terms since 2010; teachers' salaries down 23 per cent since 2010, alongside a staggering 27 per cent cut for support staff.

Now, turning to the Bill and its implications, the Bill gives UK Ministers and employers the power to force workers within six sectors to work during strike action. Through the new work notices system, employers are able to dismiss workers who refuse to comply with the order to work during strike action, thus circumventing statutory rights against unfair dismissal that are enshrined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also obliges unions to enforce these strike-breaking work notices, making them liable to up to £1 million in losses if they cannot force compliance amongst their members. This raises the very real prospect of trade unions being sued into bankruptcy, which would be the case for the first time since 1906.

Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, to which the UK is a signatory, affirms the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of their choice. It also affirms the right of trade unions to function freely. As numerous union representatives and employment law experts have pointed out, the anti-strikes Bill is in direct contravention of these fundamental rights. To quote a recent European Trade Union Confederation statement, this would push the UK

'even further outside the democratic mainstream' on labour rights.

Of course, this Bill is merely the latest in a long line of Tory-driven legislation to undermine the rights of workers. The Industrial Relations Act 1971, introduced by the Heath administration, for example, diluted worker protections and put up new barriers against collective bargaining. This was followed by a succession of Employment Acts under Thatcher's rabidly anti-union Government, which, amongst other things, restricted the ability of unions to picket and outlawed solidarity strikes. More recently, the Trade Union Act 2016 imposed higher thresholds on organising and undertaking industrial action, while last year's repeal of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations enabled employers to hire temporary agency workers to undercut strike action.

The effect of all of this has left the UK with the most repressive anti-union laws in Europe—a point underlined by the fact that, while 60 per cent of workers in the EU are covered by collective bargaining agreements, a mere 26 per cent of UK workers are covered by such agreements. Such facts clearly expose the hollowness of Tory rhetoric on over-mighty union barons and their attempt to dress up this Bill as a measure that will bring the UK in line with European norms. 

But, of course, today our motion goes further than just expressing solidarity. Our motion calls on this Senedd and Government to support and campaign for the devolution of employment law. The simple fact is that we can't rely on Westminster to protect the rights of workers. It's a given when the Government is blue, but, sadly, you could say the same if the Government were red. Between 1997 and 2010, did Blair or did Brown repeal Thatcher's anti-union laws? No; in fact, when introducing the Employment Relations Act 1999, Blair wrote in The Times:

'The changes that we do propose would leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world.'

Now, I admit that I have more faith in the Welsh Government to protect workers' rights than I do in Blair, Brown and Starmer, but it's because of this lack of belief, and it's because of the fact that Welsh values, when it comes to industrial relations, don't always align with Westminster, that we should be chomping at the bit to bring these powers to this place. Now, the Government's amendment was genuinely disappointing, in the sense that it removed our call, but I hope, throughout the course of this debate, the Deputy Minister might change her mind.  

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and, if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Joel James to move amendment 1. Joel James.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

Welcomes the action being taken by the UK Government to amend the legal framework governing industrial action to ensure that minimum service levels are set in key sectors during periods of strike action. 

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I move this amendment in the name of Darren Millar. It is clear that the motion presented by Plaid Cymru seems to have completely misrepresented the UK Government's policy on minimum service levels by claiming that it is an attempt by the UK Government to gain sufficient coercive power to curtail both trade union and worker ability to engage in lawful industrial action, when this is clearly so not the case and not the purpose of the legislation. But then again, Llywydd, Plaid Cymru members do have their social media channels to think about.

The Conservatives believe wholeheartedly that everyone should have the right to strike, but when it comes to the NHS and to the fire and rescue service, it is not right that those who are in desperate need of emergency care cannot get an ambulance or rescue service because of strike action. The measures proposed in the minimum service levels Bill are designed to protect lives and ensure that people who face an imminent threat to life or limb have quick access to care and treatment. And it is mind-boggling to me how anyone could not want such care to be received. At present, the minimum service levels for life and limb protection are individually negotiated by various services across the country, which leads to considerable inconsistency. In Wales, there is likely to be a different minimum service to England and Scotland, and legislating a pre-agreed national minimum level across the entire United Kingdom will help to improve consistency. 

Another reason, as many in this Chamber will very well know, is that current legislation on striking services does not require people to say whether or not they intend to strike, which creates situations where people organising rotas have no knowledge of who will actually be available for work, making it very difficult to plan even minimum services for shifts, and it's vital that, for health, fire and rescue, transport and education, these sectors are able to plan. 

In my mind, there is nothing wrong with introducing legislation that provides minimum service levels during strikes so that the most vulnerable—those who are in life-threatening danger—have the service that they need. The International Labour Organization, which the TUC subscribes to, recommends appropriate minimum service levels in both vital and non-vital services, and similar minimum service legislation is already commonplace in several European countries, such as France, Germany and Italy.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published its impact assessment of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill and drew a broadly favourable picture of this legislation—

Will the Member take an intervention?

—concluding it would boost public confidence around access to vital services during walkouts.

Go on.

You say that you want us to follow the French and Italian models, and the legislative framework around employment laws are different there. Not only do they have different laws around strikes, but they've got better representation of workers on their boards. So, if you want us to have the same rules around employment as they do in France, why don't we have the same rules with getting workers on the boards of those companies as well here in Wales?

Well, I'm sure that's a question you can point to the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership.

—a broadly favourable picture of this legislation, concluding it will boost public confidence around access to vital services during walkouts, and stated that there would be economic benefits that would result from less disruption to day-to-day business activity. I will, however, concede that there will be a need for more consideration to certain aspects of the minimum operating requirements: for example, in Rhyl, where, whilst trains can be reduced to one per hour instead of three, there are some services such as signal boxes that are binary, and, in aviation, air traffic control is either open or closed. But this will, I am sure, be addressed in the secondary legislation accompanying the Bill. 

There is no doubt in my mind that this Bill is about fairness and balance—nothing more, nothing less. If a trade union notifies an employer of a strike in accordance with existing normal rules, this Bill means that employers will be required to consult the trade union on the minimum number of workers needed and that work will be undertaken, and they must have regard to the union's views before issuing any work notice. Therefore, the notion that this Bill is

'a full-frontal attack on working people and the trade unions' is nothing more than political posturing by Plaid Cymru. And I would urge everyone here in this Chamber to vote against this motion and instead support our amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Thank you, Llywydd.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership to formally move amendment 2.

Amendment 2—Lesley Griffiths

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Acknowledges and respects the strength of feeling demonstrated by trade union members through strike ballots and industrial action taken.

2. Believes that the UK Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is an attack on trade unions and a workers' fundamental right to strike.

3. Regrets the complete lack of engagement by the UK Government on this legislation prior to its introduction and notes the position of the Welsh Government as set out in its Written Statement and Legislative Consent Memorandum.

4. Supports the Welsh Government, and all trade unions and public sector workers in their efforts to resist the Bill.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. As we've heard from my colleague, Luke Fletcher, the UK Government's anti-strike legislation is a draconian swipe against workers seeking a fair wage for their services. What is also apparent is that this measure has worrying implications for the legislative agenda of this Senedd. Over the past few years, we've become well accustomed to the centralising tendencies of the Westminster Government as well as their thinly veiled contempt for devolution. Brexit has seemingly fuelled a form of muscular unionism that frequently rides roughshod over devolved areas of competence. This is exemplified by the introduction of measures such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the retained EU law Bill. As the First Minister alluded to earlier in the year, breaches of the Sewel convention, once unheard of in the context of devolved-UK Government relations, have become commonplace in recent years. Meanwhile, the use of section 83 powers to block the Scottish Government's gender recognition reform Bill underlines the sheer fallacy of the union as a partnership of equals.

Now, it appears that anti-strike legislation will conflict with an area of work that the Senedd has been working on, namely the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, and in particular its aim to make Wales a fair work nation. As Members will be aware, the Fair Work Commission was established as a precursor to the development of the Bill. One of its primary recommendations was the need to embed fair work practices within the legislative framework. Fair work practices were defined by the commission as a state of affairs

'where workers are fairly rewarded, heard and represented, secure and able to progress in a healthy, inclusive environment where rights are respected.'

On the basis that the Bill will contain a statutory social partnership duty on public bodies to seek consensus or compromise with trade unions, overseen by the social partnership council, which will include trade union representation, it's difficult to envisage how these fair work goals can be compatible in any way with the anti-strike Bill legislation, which is designed to seek antagonism and coercion over consensus and compromise. As I've already alluded to, the supremacy of Westminster and the disregard of this Tory Government for devolution mean the fair work agenda here in Wales is in considerable jeopardy.

Whilst we acknowledge the fact that matters of employment law in Wales are almost fully reserved to Westminster, there are some steps that could be taken to futureproof the fair work agenda from Westminster's recklessness. For example, the Scottish Government recently established a fair work and trade union modernisation fund, which is used to embed practices of fair work in industrial relations. With the implementation of the social partnership Bill, this approach should be replicated in Wales to ensure that the ambition of providing trade unions with a stronger voice in the development of economic and industrial policies is consolidated on a long-term, practical basis. This would also go some way to revitalising union presence within our private sector and amongst young workers. There is a clear discrepancy at present between union membership in the public and private sectors in Wales—just over 60 per cent in the case of the former, and just under 20 per cent in the case of the latter. Furthermore, only just over 30 per cent of workers in Wales aged 25 to 34 are members of a union, compared to 45.4 per cent of workers aged 50 and above. Clearly, there's a need to address these imbalances if the objectives of the fair work agenda are to benefit the whole of Wales.

Finally, the Welsh Government should consider introducing an accreditation scheme, whereby a public-facing fair work Wales standard would incentivise employers to participate and uphold the objectives of the fair work agenda. Diolch yn fawr.

Any dignity that is inherent in our society comes from the aspirations we hold not for ourselves but for others. That is the glory of the trade union movement and its grace: the fact that it's upheld not by individual greed but by collective endeavour, the resolve that rights can be achieved for all. We have all benefited from workers' rights hard won by generations that have gone before us: paid sick leave, holiday leave, weekends. Our lives are incalculably richer and happier because of those struggles. We owe it to the workers of today and of tomorrow in Wales to repel Westminster's attempt to erode those rights and to fight for the powers to cement them in Welsh law. 

I am so proud that I was born in the Welsh Valleys, but it is a landscape that still wears the scars of an exploited workforce—the coal miners who were paid in dust and disease and disdain. But our past wasn't only distinguished by disasters—there was comradeship too. The days of Mabon, tireless champion of the miners, who secured holidays—the first Monday of every month, known as Mabon Days. And that same drive for the common good breathed something new into the lungs of our towns and our villages, places so choked of investment, of care, of concern.

The miners' halls that still stand in Blackwood and Bedwas speak to those communities' memory of a time when meetings and concerts brought families into the warmth of social events. Miners' welfare parks and gardens were nurtured and grown. Our choirs and eisteddfods gave workers the chance to soar above the blackened hills in song. So much was achieved in our Valleys by collective action, not just in industrial terms, but in the very fabric of our society. Nye Bevan said he was happiest when he was chairman of the book selection committee for the Tredegar miners' library—a library that, in the 1930s, circulated some 100,000 books a year. But the libraries have shut, Llywydd. So many of those halls have fallen into ruin and disrepair. Too many choirs no longer meet because there isn't the collective space to meet and sing.

But we in Wales can still snatch back the collective ethos we once had. We can build on that proud history and ensure that no more workers in Wales will be undervalued, exploited, will have their pride ripped from them by devolving employment law and securing collective rights for all. Because workers' rights in the UK, as we've heard, are already so much lower than the European norm. In Italy, 97 per cent of workers are covered by collective bargaining. In France, 90 per cent. In the UK, only 26 per cent, 27 per cent of workers enjoy this privilege. Even in Russia, the figure is higher. Union rights in these islands have been eroded purposefully since Thatcher and since, I am sorry to say, New Labour failed to restore those rights in their 13 years in power.

We need these rights in Wales to make right the wrongs of our past. Because in Wales our past should be our guide. It is a familiar feeling for the trade union movement. You think of the words sung about Joe Hill, the hero of the workers in the mines of Nevada, framed with an allegation of murder—there are echoes of Dic Penderyn and Merthyr there for certain. But the song says:

'Where working men are out on strike / Joe Hill is at their side'.

Llywydd, when women and men are on strike, they don't just do that for their own rights, their own wages; they do it for the rights of workers yet to enter the workforce, they do it to uphold the rights of people and generations yet to come. And the workers also stand in solidarity, Llywydd, with the generations that have gone before, because when working men and women are out on strike in Wales, Dic Penderyn is at their side, William Abraham is at their side, or the choruses of voices from our rich and wanting past—they're lending their voices to their song. On picket lines, just like Joe Hill, they stand alive as you and me in their proud memory. Let's make this right for Wales.

I make my contribution today also in my role with the PCS cross-party group. Thank you very much, Delyth, particularly for your contribution. I think we must all bear in mind that we've all benefited from what's been achieved by those that have battled before us—each and every one of us have benefited from that as compared with our forefathers. And that's what is under threat here. Certainly, Joel James, it's not to get any likes on social media. That's not why we brought this debate forward, but because we are on the picket lines, we do speak to workers, we do listen to them and we are here to make arguments for them because they have the right to strike at the moment, and many are doing so for the first times in their lives. Members of the RCN have chosen to strike for the first time ever in the history of their organisation because they have simply had enough; they've had enough of not being paid fairly, of not being treated—. That's because of the measures put in place by the UK Government, but also in terms of the Welsh Government now. They have the power to do things differently, and we must consider what this legislation and the changes made by the UK Government will mean for workers in Wales, and what we can do differently if we have the powers here.

We've already heard about the correlation between high levels of union density and positive outcomes in terms of high wages and productivity, and this is corroborated by numerous international examples—Mabon and Delyth have already beaten me to it on this. But, consider Sweden, where 88 per cent of employees are covered by collective bargaining rights, and it has an adjusted net national income per capita of $44,552, compared to the UK's $36,000. It is also ranked seventh out of the 146 countries in the world happiness index, and scores highly on global equality metrics. The key to Sweden's successful model of labour relations has been its implementation of collective bargaining on a sector or industry level. This ensures high rates of collective bargaining coverage, particularly across the private sector, which stands in direct contrast to the company or employer level at which UK agreements usually take place, which invariably lead to low rates of collective bargaining coverage and stark discrepancies between the public and private sectors.

Similar models are in place in the fellow Nordic countries of Iceland, Denmark, Finland and Norway, all of which have the highest rates of union density in the world and are amongst the world's wealthiest, most equal and happiest of nations. Collective agreements cover 98 per cent of French workers, who enjoy 10 per cent higher disposable incomes compared to the average UK worker, and a shorter working week. As such, sectoral bargaining is a model that other nations are seeking to emulate, and with good reason. For example, New Zealand recently passed its Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022, which facilitates collective bargaining for fair pay agreements across entire industries or occupations. This at a time when the UK Government want to oppress trade unions. 

We cannot ignore what the UK Government is trying to achieve through this. Our communities have suffered enough. We've heard clearly from Delyth, Luke, Peredur and others. We know that, having spoken to workers on the ground. We know that people aren't happy in our communities. They're working hard, yet they can't afford to buy food or to warm their homes. They're working harder than ever, working longer hours than ever, missing out on opportunities to be with their families, with young children and so on, they're having to work every hour of the day and still they can't afford food and energy. That's the situation in Britain today, and in Wales today.

Things do have to change. We need the powers here in Wales to change things for the workers of Wales. There is more that the Welsh Government could do, most certainly, and there's more that the UK Government should do. This is about the rights of each and every one of us—each and every one of us—and, as Delyth said, it's about future generations too. We benefited greatly from the battles fought in the past, and we must now fight for those rights to continue. 

The Deputy Minister for Social Partnership now. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome this debate, and thank most Members for their contributions. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is an attack on workers, workers' rights and trade unions. The Welsh Government opposes the Bill in the strongest terms, as set out in the Government amendment. In particular, the Government amendment highlights the written statement containing the First Minister's letter to the UK Government and the legislative consent memorandum that will be laid before the Senedd. These are clear and publicly available statements setting out our position and our significant concerns about this Bill.

We categorically do not believe the right response to industrial unrest is to introduce new laws that not only ride roughshod over the devolution settlement, but make it even harder for workers to take industrial action. We believe that the right response is to work in partnership with employers and trade unions to resolve disputes collaboratively. So, it should not come as a surprise that we do not support amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar. The way to resolve industrial disputes is by negotiation and agreement, however challenging that may be at times for all involved; it's not through ill-conceived legislation that will do nothing to help resolve current disputes, will do lasting damage to industrial relations across the UK, and will interfere with devolved public services in Wales. The irony is that this same legislation comes from a Conservative Government that has repeatedly failed to produce its promised employment Bill to extend workers' rights and is now set to do the absolute opposite. It seems parliamentary time cannot be found to enhance workers rights, but there are no issues with finding parliamentary time to take those rights away.

Turning to the point that Luke Fletcher made with regard to the devolution of employment law in Wales: you'll be aware that there is work undertaken at the moment by the Wales TUC and a commission on that, and we await those findings. And we'll work with the Wales TUC on those findings, and anything that we would do in Wales would be to work in partnership, to look at not only the opportunities, but the potential challenges that may come in the future.

In responding to the motion today, I want to reiterate why we oppose the UK Government's Bill. Firstly, we oppose this Bill on principle. It's an unnecessary and unjustified attack on workers' rights and trade unions, and stands in sharp contrast to our approach to trade unions in Wales and, as you've heard, our ambitions for Wales and fair work. Secondly, there was a complete lack of engagement with devolved Governments prior to the UK Government hastily announcing their intentions through a press notice on 5 January. Whilst consultation documents are now being published on ambulance services, rail and fire and rescue services, this is all happening after the Bill has been introduced and whilst it is going through parliamentary scrutiny.

Thirdly, we oppose the Bill because a number of devolved public services are in the scope of the Bill and the Bill contains Henry VIII powers, which gives a Secretary of State sweeping powers. Quite simply, supporting this Bill entails handing the Secretary of State a blank cheque. When even supporters of the Bill, like the infamous Jacob Rees-Mogg, criticised the Bill as a 'badly written' Bill that fails to

'set out clearly what it is trying to achieve', we know the Bill is definitely not in a good place. Fourthly, we clearly share many of the concerns voiced by trade unions and others about the effectiveness and the impact of this Bill. Our ability and, indeed, the ability of the UK Parliament to properly scrutinise those issues were seriously hampered by the absence of an impact assessment. The impact assessment was belatedly published just last week; an impact assessment the Regulatory Policy Committee immediately described as, I quote, 'not fit for purpose'.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes.

I'm glad to hear that you're saying that you're opposing what's going on in Westminster at the moment, and very strong words being said, but do you share my disappointment that your Labour colleagues aren't here today? Can you tell us where they are? Because if we're really feeling so angry about this and we want to make our voices heard, we need your colleagues here to share their voices as well, so that this Senedd's voice is collectively heard and that Westminster hears what we've got to say. Can you tell us where your colleagues are, please?

I can certainly speak on behalf on my colleagues in the Labour group and say we are fundamentally, wholeheartedly and collectively opposed to it and we will work with our partners across the Labour movement in Wales, and the UK, to oppose such attacks on workers' rights.

And we oppose this Bill because the rationale the UK Government has tried to present for the Bill as bringing the UK into line with many other European countries simply does not stack up, as we've heard from the Plaid Cymru benches. The international comparisons overplay similarities between this Bill and the operation of minimum service levels elsewhere. As you've heard, minimum service levels are typically the product of an agreement between employers and trade unions, sometimes with independent arbitration used as a backstop. In contrast to that, this Bill offers a prospect of imposition of minimum service levels through diktat backed up by the threat of workers being sacked if they do not comply. And it's not just us who say that the international comparisons with countries like France, Italy and Spain are false. We heard the General Secretary of the European Public Service Union, which protects 8 million public service workers across Europe, wrote to the Prime Minister, in a publicly available letter, to say: 

'In a debate in the Commons, you claimed that a Government unilaterally opposing minimum services should not be controversial and cite the legal framework in other countries. This statement is not correct and you take the legislation in other countries out of context.

The letter explains why that is the case and goes on to say:

'your government is rushing through a new law that will impose minimum service levels in key sectors, including the possibility that strikers will be sacked if they fail to comply with notices to work. This will be challenged under European and international law to which the UK is party.'

The UK Government has also tried to create a smokescreen that the International Labour Organization is supportive of the Bill. The director general of the ILO himself has confirmed he was not aware of any discussions between the ILO and the UK Government about the legislation. He did, however, confirm that the ILO has been in discussions with trade unions about making a complaint about the Bill. To say that the ILO supports this Bill is simply inaccurate at best. 

Time and time again, the UK Government's claims about this Bill and international support and international comparisons have fallen apart on their first contact with the facts. We do not want this Bill in Wales and we do not need it. I'm pleased that there is a majority opposing this legislation in Wales. It is unnecessary, unjustified and most likely unworkable. We are committed to opposing this pernicious, ideologically driven legislation, and working in partnership to do so. 

In closing, Llywydd, I want to say there's never been a more important time to join a trade union. Trade unions are not only good for workers—they're good for workplaces, and they're good for Wales. Diolch. 

Luke Fletcher to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. As I close this debate, I'm reminding myself of what I'd said in my opening to the debate around having faith in the Government to be better than UK Labour and Conservative Governments. I have to say, though, it is quite disappointing to not have a single contribution from the Members of the Labour backbench. There was an offer of solidarity on behalf of the Labour group, but they should be here giving that solidarity and saying that solidarity themselves in this Chamber, in a debate on an attack that members of that party have vocally opposed and condemned. 

This debate has demonstrated today through Plaid Cymru Members, and the Deputy Minister as well, to be fair, the case and need to protect workers' rights. Heledd set out how much we owe to the trade union movement and things we take for granted: maternity leave, minimum wage, the weekend, all things we take for granted these days. If the Tories were truly committed to delivering a high-growth and high-wage economy, as they keep promising, then they would support this cause rather than persist with an increasingly out-of-touch ideological crusade of antagonism and attrition against working people. 

I'm sorry, Joel, that you drew the short straw on this debate. I mean, you know, tell me you're a member of the Conservative Party without actually saying that you're a member of the Conservative Party. I would seriously encourage Joel to go and speak to the Royal College of Nursing, for example, about what happens on a strike day, and I think you'll find very quickly that what he set out in his contribution was factually incorrect. To be fair, I don't think many people on that side of the Chamber, if any at all, have been within a mile of a picket line, but just try it once and I think you'll see a lot of the things that you believe happen are simply untrue. 

While the Welsh Government's social partnership Bill and its fair work agenda provides a useful foundation, we do also acknowledge the limitations of devolved competencies over employment law in Wales, which is almost entirely reserved to Westminster. But it is for this very reason that we call on the Welsh Government to redouble its efforts in seeking further devolved powers over employment law here in Wales. As is apparent throughout so many aspects of current devolved settlement powers, though, the Welsh Government has ample scope for policy design in a number of areas, including industrial and economic strategy, but lacks the ability and the mechanisms to effectively enforce and consolidate its policy delivery. This is particularly problematic when, as is the case presently, the respective priorities of the Welsh Government and Westminster are increasingly polarised, as Peredur alluded to.

When trade unions are strong, we all win. For me, our economy should be the result of the kind of society we want to create. For me, that also reflects the history that Delyth alluded to—a society that is one of compassion, solidarity, one where no-one is left to fall behind. I'll borrow from the film Pride for a moment. They're at Castell Carreg Cennen and Dai is telling Mark about the lodge banner, the symbol on that banner of two hands. That is what the trade union movement means: I support you, you support me, shoulder to shoulder, hand to hand, solidarity. That is in stark contrast to what's on offer from Westminster’s division and poverty. More demands will be made, more ballots will be put forward, and more workers up and down Wales will join. Plaid Cymru will be right there alongside them, with solidarity with all workers fighting for better pay and working conditions, not just in Wales, but across the globe.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections, and we will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.