Group 4 is the next group of amendments. This group relates to nominations to the partnership council by Wales TUC Cymru. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move amendment 2.

Amendment 2 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to make it clear from the outset that this is a probing amendment, designed to ensure the maximum possible plurality for the social partnership council. It's not designed to slight anyone, nor any organisation. It is submitted in good faith to ensure that the voices heard as part of the new and influential council are drawn from as wide a pool as possible. This amendment would therefore place a statutory duty on the First Minister to seek nominations for worker representatives on the social partnership council that are not affiliated with the TUC.

As I've stated previously at committee stage, our calls for worker representation on the social partnership council that extend beyond TUC-affiliated unions is not designed to cast doubt on the vital contribution of the TUC in advancing the rights of workers in Wales. Indeed, we have excellent relationships with the TUC, and long may that continue. We are glad that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that the TUC has a strong voice in shaping the future course of social partnership. Rather, as Plaid Cymru has emphasised through the progression of this Bill, in order to truly realise the benefits of tripartite engagement on social partnership and, in particular, to move towards a progressive high-road model of industrial relations, we must ensure that the composition of the social partnership council is reflective of the diversity of labour representation here in Wales. We firmly believe that guaranteeing a seat at the table for non-TUC bodies such as the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association—both huge and influential trade unions in their own right—will enrich the outlook of the social partnership council and enhance its potential to deliver the goals in the interests of a broad section of Welsh society. 

Since we first brought this matter forward, I'm pleased to say that I've had very productive meetings with the Deputy Minister, who has given assurances that, while the inclusion of a statutory duty of this nature will not be possible, the TUC has nevertheless provided written guarantees to put forward nominations to the SPC on behalf of the whole trade union membership in Wales. I've also engaged with the TUC directly for further clarification on the matter. They concur wholeheartedly with the general principle that the SPC should include a wide spectrum of trade union representation. They've also explained that, in line with similar arrangements in place for the workforce partnership council, they will endeavour to establish an SPC union secretariat, consisting of all registered trade unions in Wales who wish to be members. We are very grateful for these assurances.

In light of that, is the Deputy Minister prepared to go on the record in the Siambr to confirm that the nomination process to the SPC will function in this way? And can she provide assurances to trade unions not affiliated to the TUC so that concerns around the nomination process can be allayed? If concerns can be addressed sufficiently, we will happily withdraw this amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

The Deputy Minister, Hannah Blythyn. 

Can the Deputy Minister's microphone be unmuted? Yes, there you go.

Diolch, Llywydd. It might be worth recapping the background to this issue for the benefit of those Members who've not been so closely involved in the passage of the Bill as the members of the scrutiny committee and me. As Peredur set out in his opening remarks, during the committee stages of scrutiny, concerns were raised by some parties in relation to the role of Wales TUC as the body that will provide nominations to the First Minister for worker representatives to sit on the social partnership council. Those concerns were based on an assumption that, in this role, Wales TUC would, or perhaps even could, only nominate individuals from trade unions affiliated to the TUC, with the result that some professions or sectors would be excluded from the SPC, simply by dint of their members not being in unions affiliated to the TUC. I have clarified during previous stages, and in discussions with Members outside of committee, that this is not the intention of sections 4 and 5 of the Bill, and that Wales TUC will be able to nominate worker representatives from non-affiliated unions. As the explanatory notes to this part of the Bill make clear, the intention is

'to create a diverse group by providing for a wide range of workers to be represented on the SPC'.

I should also remind Members that, again, as stated in the explanatory notes, the First Minister is under no obligation to appoint all or any individuals nominated by Wales TUC Cymru to be a worker representative, and that

'the First Minister could decide not to appoint one or more Wales TUC Cymru nominees and ask for others to be nominated.'

Our Wales TUC colleagues fully appreciate the nature of this role, and have confirmed in their letter, which I shared with committee members last month, that it's their intention to seek nominees from all trade unions in Wales, not just those affiliated to the TUC. I would just like to take a minute to quote a few lines from the letter for the benefit of those Members who will not have seen it:

'Wales TUC is the only suitable structure to work with the entire union movement to conduct elections for the worker representative nominees to the Social Partnership Council…. This is a role we already hold for the trade union delegation to the Workforce Partnership Council, where we take the role of secretariat for all trade unions recognised in the devolved public sector (including trade unions which are not affiliated to the TUC, such as the RCN, BMA and ASCL).'

The letter goes on to say,

'we will establish a SPC union side as the democratic group to determine union-side nominations to the SPC, and protocols for how those with SPC seats engage with the wider union-side and existing sectoral arrangements. This will include arrangements to ensure that smaller trade unions are not excluded', and concludes with an expectation that

'non-affiliated trade unions [will] be included as part of the list of nominees presented to the First Minister'.

Before I close, I would also like to mention specifically in relation to representation of the health and social care sectors that the purpose of the SPC is not to replace those existing, well-established social partnerships such as the NHS Wales partnership forum, but to build strong and effective relationships between current structures and the SPC.

So, in conclusion, whilst the Government is satisfied that the written commitment we have from Wales TUC provides sufficient guarantee that nominations to the social partnership council will include representatives from non-affiliated unions, I can assure Members that if, for any reason, this agreement was to prove insufficient at any point in the future, we would, of course, be willing to revisit the matter. So, whilst the Government will not be supporting amendments 2 or 27, as I said at Stage 2, we do appreciate the spirit in which they have been tabled.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank the Deputy Minister for those reassurances. There was some anxiety in some quarters that certain groups and workers would be disenfranchised from this element of the Bill. Having heard those reassurances on the record today, I am content that any unintended consequences of this part of the Bill will not be realised. Having said that, I'm grateful for the undertaking that matters could be revisited if those assurances are not fully realised. For the same reason, we won't be supporting the Conservative amendment in this group. Therefore, Llywydd, I'd like to withdraw this amendment.

Thank you for that. Is there an objection to the withdrawing of amendment 2? No, there isn't. I consider amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

Amendment 27 will be our next vote—amendment 27 in the name of Joel James.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 27 (Joel James) moved.

Yes.

It is. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 27. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed.

Amendment 27: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 28.

Is it being moved, Joel James?

Amendment 28 (Joel James) moved.

Yes.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 28. Open the vote.

Technical difficulty overcome.

Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 28 is not agreed.

Amendment 28: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 29.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 29 (Joel James) moved.

Yes.

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 29? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 29. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 29 is not agreed.

Amendment 29: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected