National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Lee Waters.

Our programme for government sets out that we will ensure young people in Wales have the relevant skills they need for the future by developing coding skills in our young people. The Cabinet Secretary will be making an announcement as to how we are taking this forward in June.

Thank you, First Minister. My daughter was nine yesterday, and, for her birthday, she asked for a Raspberry Pi, which is not a fruit-based pudding, but, in fact, as you know, a small computer manufactured in your constituency.

No, in my constituency. [Laughter.]

In your area. [Laughter.] But when she leaves education, the ability to programme computers will be an essential skill, everything from programming a manufacturing line to designing the next innovation. But the chief inspector of schools found that ICT standards are strong in only a very few schools, and not enough understand the potential of digital learning to aid teaching and learning. Teaching our children to code should not rely on the enthusiasm of the odd teacher, or on a parent’s ability to buy a Raspberry Pi. It must be a key part of what our schools do, or we’ll be left behind. Now, as you indicate, the Donaldson curriculum will, of course, address this, but more than 150,000 young people will graduate the school system without this basic skills before that’s fully implemented. So, would you consider, First Minister, what interim measures you can put in place to ensure that every child in Wales gets the opportunity to learn computer coding as soon as possible?

Well, can I begin, first of all, by wishing the Member’s daughter a happy birthday for yesterday? She’ll be a teenager soon. [Laughter.] In answer to his question, we do know, of course, that we want to encourage coding skills. We’ve fast-tracked the publication of the digital competence framework, which will support the development and embedding of digital skills in everything a young person does in school. Many schools have already introduced coding skills into the classroom. We have invested £670,000 to the Technocamps and Technoteach programmes to deliver computer coding workshops to pupils and teachers in secondary schools in Wales, and we’ve made a commitment to expand code clubs in every part of Wales. And that is before, of course, the announcement next month.

First Minister, we do need to be part of the coding revolution, and it’s important that our young people learn these skills. But, of course, one of the problems that they’ve got is being able to do homework in relation to coding, because there is inadequate access to the Superfast Cymru high-speed broadband scheme. You’ll be aware that you made a clear commitment in your 2011 Labour Assembly manifesto, which gave a pledge to roll out broadband to all residential premises and businesses by 2015. That was a broken promise, wasn’t it? Don’t you think that it’s about time you delivered on that promise, and the others in that manifesto that you didn’t keep?

Well, our promise is to deliver to 96 per cent of premises by the summer of this year, in contrast to his party who made no promises at all when it came to broadband, and probably struggle with the very concept of what broadband is.

If we have the money to be spending on IT, wouldn’t that money be better spent on literacy and numeracy in schools, which has been failing for a while?

I see that 1951 has dawned in the corner over there. Well, of course, literacy and numeracy are important, but so are IT skills. We know, as Members here, that we couldn’t function properly in our jobs if we didn’t have at least basic IT skills, and it’s hugely important that our children have the same, if not better, IT skills, compared to other children in the world.

Each local authority is responsible for the collection of its debts as part of its own effective financial management processes.

I’m a bit disappointed with that answer, First Minister, as I thought you’d like to know what your local authorities are not recovering at a time when they’re claiming that austerity is depriving them of any money. I’m sure you’ll join me in congratulating all the newly elected councillors at Bridgend County Borough Council, including the 10 new Conservative members, and, hopefully, the new council will be able to reply to freedom of information requests within the statutory time limit so that I can ask questions like this with full information to hand. Can you tell me how much unclaimed debt is owed to local authorities, the main sources of those debts, and the reasons that local authorities give you for not pursuing them?

I can say that, in 2015-16, local authorities collected over 97 per cent of council tax billed—the highest level since this tax was introduced. Maintaining full entitlement to support for all eligible applicants via our council tax reduction scheme has helped to mitigate rises in the level of council tax debt in Wales, and we know that council tax in Wales is far lower than in England, under a Tory Government there. And, of course, I can say to the Member that collection rates in Wales are now at 97.2 per cent; they are lower in England.

I last saw Councillor Keith Reynolds, leader of Caerphilly County Borough Council, working at his desk some weeks before he died. Would the First Minister recognise that Welsh Labour’s victory in Caerphilly county borough is a testament to Keith’s leadership, his sound financial management, and a lifetime in public service?

Well, could I join the Member in expressing my regards, of course, to Councillor Keith Reynolds’s family? I know the illness was short and, in many ways, unexpected. And, of course, I’m sure that people in Caerphilly would have recognised the work that he and so many others did over the course of the last five years.

Would the First Minister agree that the third party that owes the biggest debt of all to Welsh local authorities is the Westminster Government, which has cut over a third in spending on adult care since 2011, which has had severe financial consequences in Wales and, obviously, terrible consequences in terms of the human cost to the elderly, the sick and the disabled? If this callous Conservative Government is re-elected, as seems increasingly likely, on 8 June, we need a plan to defend Wales. Where is it? What is it? Who’s going to lead it? Because I have to say, on the evidence seen from yesterday, we are in a dire position if it’s going to be him.

Well, according to last week, it’s him. He was talking about the need for leadership, he was talking about himself. We will happily stand up for Wales. We don’t want to see a future Conservative Government walk all over Wales. And we have stood up for our people, as the election last year showed, and, indeed, in 2011. The reality is—and he is right to point out the cuts that have taken place—we have lost, since 2010, the equivalent of the entire budget for health in the whole of north Wales. Despite that, we’ve maintained health spending at 1 per cent above the level in England per head, and maintained health and social care spending at 6 per cent per head higher than in England, showing a Welsh Labour Government delivering for the people of Wales in the face of Tory austerity.

I now call on the party leaders to question the First Minister. The Leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. You launched your election campaign yesterday, talking a lot about unity. But you couldn’t bring yourself to utter the name of your leader. Is Jeremy Corbyn still your candidate for Prime Minister?

Yes.

First Minister, yesterday, you had a chance to put Wales on the political landscape, but, instead—I’m sure that Theresa May will be breathing a huge sigh of relief—three of your major pledges are devolved, and they were promises made ahead of last year’s election. And a fourth pledge, on policing, could have been devolved if only Labour MPs hadn’t had their own way. Now, the next few years will define the future of Wales and the UK. You should have made clear Welsh demands, to give Wales a voice, to defend Wales, but you failed to do that. We’ll now have to rely on Plaid Cymru MPs—[Interruption.]

Okay. Calm down. Let the question continue.

We will now have to rely upon Plaid Cymru MPs to best set out how we can defend Wales. Why did you choose to let Theresa May off the hook?

They don’t like the slogan ‘Standing up for Wales’, do they? It’s one of the things I’ve noticed. And I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for reiterating our pledges—pledges that we in Welsh Labour are proud of—and she will find more to come in the manifesto that will be published in due course.

They were promises you pledged before the last election. You should have already delivered on some of those pledges. First Minister, the reality is you have airbrushed your leader out of this campaign. You talk a lot about unity, but I believe that you’ve airbrushed him out of this campaign because you know that Labour can’t win. Now, you want to make the election about your record, about the record of the Welsh Government, and we all know why you’re doing that, and that’s why most of your recycled election pledges are within devolved competence. Therefore, then, if you lose this election in Wales, as many polls are suggesting that you might, does that mean this will be a verdict on you? Will it be your fault? And if you become the first Labour leader to lose Wales, the first time in 100 years, will you be prepared to take responsibility or can we expect you, yet again, to blame somebody else?

Well, we had all of this last year. We saw the result. People trust us to stand up for Wales. We saw Plaid Cymru’s results in the local elections: very little by way of advances, backwards in Caerphilly. Only last week in this Chamber—only last week in this Chamber—the Member for South Wales Central was claiming he would be the leader of Cardiff council, and they won three seats. Three seats. He’s now claiming that—he’s not here, I know, and I recognise that—Cardiff West was a great victory for Plaid Cymru. Well, with three seats and Labour on 12, I’m more than happy to concede that victory to them if that is their definition of it. We have an election to fight. We will all, as parties, put our policies forward to the people of Wales, but, above all else, we will be standing up for Wales.

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week in the news, First Minister, there were some serious concerns raised about the Tawel Fan report and the progress being made on the reporting system around the Tawel Fan ‘disaster’—I’d call it—where people were actually, as the previous report talked about, being treated like animals, and other shocking revelations. Families were showing real concern over the progress of the information that’s coming back to them in order to satisfy themselves over the way their loved ones were looked after. There has been a call for the mortality report to be brought forward because Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board has identified that some premature deaths could be associated with the levels of care that were around the Tawel Fan unit at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. In fact, the head of the community health council in north Wales has called for this report to be made available because it has been finished. Will you, as a Government, commit to making that report available given that Betsi Cadwaladr are in special measures and you are responsible for that health board?

We will give full consideration to that on the basis that we want to be as open and transparent as possible. It is what people would expect, and consideration will be given to releasing that report if that’s appropriate.

Well, the head of the community health council believes that it is appropriate, and, to use his words, so that

‘It may stop this practice elsewhere’.

We know that report is available; it has been concluded. You are spending £5 million a year additionally running Betsi Cadwaldr because it’s in special measures, so you are responsible. When families and concerned clinicians want to see this data so they can fully understand what went on within that unit, why on earth are you not allowing that report to come forward, because it would add a huge amount of comfort to the families and to the individuals who’ve heard such horrific stories over the care within that unit? In particular, I draw your attention to the fact that, as has already been said, patients were treated like animals.

Well, the report is, as I understand it, with the independent overseer and, at the right time, consideration will be given to releasing the report. It’s important that as much information as possible is made available to those who have seen their relatives suffer and to those who have suffered in order that lessons can be learned.

I’m really disappointed you’re not prepared to give some firm indications of when that report will be available. As I said, this isn’t a politician who’s saying this report should be made available; this is the head of the community health council in north Wales, along with family members and clinicians. So, I’d be grateful, if you’re not in a position to give an indication of the timeline today because I’ve just put that question to you, that you would indicate that you will write to me to allow me to have sight of the timeline that you as a Government are working to. I think that’s the very least that someone can expect given the concerns that were raised last week.

But, also, I would ask you to confirm that you are satisfied with the level of bed capacity in north Wales for mental health patients, because it has come to our attention that there is a ‘sofa system’ working in north Wales, where, if a bed is not available in mental health, people are put on sofas to try and meet the targets. That cannot be right. It is putting vulnerable people in a position where they could be exploited. How can anyone feel that a ‘sofa system’ meets the requirement for providing safe and secure bed capacity in the north Wales health board area?

Well, if the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has evidence of a sofa system, as he describes it, I’d be glad to see that evidence. And I will, of course, write to him along the lines that he has asked for, providing him with more information regarding the timescale in terms of any release of the report.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

The First Minister will know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education’s party is standing in this Westminster election on a policy of increasing income tax for people earning as low as £11,000 a year, and the Labour Party nationally is apparently going to stand on a policy of increasing the top rate of income tax from 45p to 50p. Does he agree with the Shadow Chancellor that we have a great deal to learn from Karl Marx and ‘Das Kapital’, and does he think that raising the top rate of tax is likely to raise more money?

Yes, I do. I think that raising the top rate of tax will raise more money. I don’t think that we have much to learn from ‘Das Kapital’; for those who’ve read it and tried to understand what it says, it is not an easy exercise. We will stand on a platform of ensuring that those who can afford to pay a little bit more do pay a little bit more in order to ensure that we have the public services that people would expect.

So, am I to take it from that response that it is now the policy of the Welsh Government, when tax powers are devolved to us in this Assembly, to follow the Labour Party’s manifesto nationally of increase top rates of tax in Wales, because the evidence from the last time that this happened in 2013 was that reducing the tax rate from 50p to the current 45p actually led to an enormous increase in revenue of about £8 billion? So, it seems to be rather counterproductive to stand on a policy that increases tax rates and actually reduces revenue, and makes it less likely that the Welsh Government will be able to put more money into the national health service.

As far as the Welsh rate of income tax is concerned, we’ve already pledged that we will not increase the rate of income tax during the course of this Assembly.

I’m delighted to hear that, but whether that means that the First Minister accepts that raising rates doesn’t necessarily lead to increasing revenue offers Wales a great opportunity to make our country into a kind of tax haven within the United Kingdom, which would help us to reverse the economic trends of many, many decades in Wales and give us a significant advantage, in the same way as southern Ireland has used differential rates of corporation tax to kick-start the Celtic tiger economy, which was very successful in that country—.

He raises an interesting point about corporation tax; there are no proposals to devolve corporation tax. What I do know is that tax havens tend to have very poor public services; in particular, they don’t have health services because they can’t raise the money in order to pay for those public services. So, I don’t believe that the future of Wales lies in being a kind of replica of the British Virgin Islands, or a replica, necessarily, of the Channel Islands. We have a very different model; the Channel Islands don’t have, for example, a health service along the model that we would understand, but getting the balance right between revenue and expenditure on public services to the level that people would expect is, of course, a matter for Governments to balance.

‘Static’ I think is the word that I would use. There’s been a tremendous amount of posturing on both sides. I hope that comes to an end pretty soon so that the task of ensuring a sensible Brexit is taken forward.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Although the UK Treasury has guaranteed full funding for all European structural and investment projects that have started before the UK leaves the EU, does the First Minister agree that it’s absolutely crucial that after the UK leaves the EU the total sum of money that has been available in the past for these projects in Wales is added to the Welsh budget, and is under the control of the Welsh budget?

I do. First of all, we know that structural funds are guaranteed to 2020. Farming subsidies are guaranteed to 2020, but nothing beyond. At the moment, farmers face the scenario where they’ll have nothing at all in terms of support beyond that time. I have an easy answer, and that’s quite simply for the pot of money to be made available, as it is now, and for it to be distributed as it is now to provide the certainty that structural funds have provided so far, and particularly certainty for our farmers. That’s a good way of ensuring that farmers don’t have to suffer as a result of Brexit.

Although Jeremy Corbyn has joined the Conservatives in saying he wants Brexit to deliver a fairer society and an upgraded economy, we recognise there are tough negotiations ahead. How, therefore, do you respond to his statement that the issue of Brexit is settled?

In terms of the question, it is settled, because Britain is leaving the EU and that question has already been answered. What I don’t see, however, is any semblance of any kind of plan from the UK Government. Nothing. I’ve sat there in meetings and I’ve asked. I’ve tried to see what the plan is. There isn’t one. Last Thursday, we saw panic on the part of the Prime Minister when she started to worry about what Brexit would mean for ordinary working people and she’s right to be concerned about that. But you can’t say on the one hand that no deal is better than a bad deal and then say, ‘Oh, but, of course, we need a deal to make sure that we don’t see an economic downturn.’ Now, what’s hugely important is that the posturing of last week goes and that we have ideas as to what Brexit might look like. She was a remainer. Let’s not forget that. She is somebody, like me, who has accepted the result and it’s hugely important, for those who have ideas, to work together to take those ideas forward, because we’ve had nothing at all in terms of ideas from those who campaigned for Brexit.

Will the First Minister agree with me that the kind of language being used by the Prime Minister to attack our friends and neighbours on the continent helps nobody in terms of the negotiations that are to come? It doesn’t only tarnish Theresa May’s Government, but it also threatens to tarnish the reputation of Wales. The First Minister’s asking for ideas in going forward, to mitigate the potential of tarnishing Wales’s good name around the world because of that language being used by Theresa May. Will he commit to implement a new international policy for Wales that would include designating a member of his Cabinet as the external affairs Cabinet Secretary for our country, in order to start rebuilding the bridges that Westminster is so determined to burn down?

Last week’s language was undiplomatic. I think both sides, actually, were guilty of posturing and that needs to come to an end. This is not a war. Nobody has invaded anybody else. We’re not about to face each other, to stare at each other over the channel or, indeed, across the Irish border. We want to be friends and allies and trading partners at the end of the day. We’ve already started looking at our international policy, in particular where we need to beef up our international presence. We know we’ve been successful. The Qatar Airways flight is another example of where Welsh Government has been able to support the airport to get that route, but the next stage forward is for us to make sure that we look to having sufficient presence and an increased presence in those markets that will become important to us.

We do promote existing retail and commercial centres as the most sustainable locations for new development. Local authorities should establish land use and regeneration strategies and policies to support vibrant, viable and attractive retail and commercial centres.

Thank you, First Minister. Morriston and Swansea are a major district shopping centre. There are other district shopping centres in Swansea and in other cities in Wales. I’d like to stress the importance of district shopping centres, such as in Morriston, Mumbles and Whitchurch in Cardiff. In Morriston, we have lost banks, public houses and shopping diversity. Will the First Minister agree with me that there should be a major bank in every one of these district shopping centres?

Well, ideally, we would welcome the co-location of bank branches within district shopping centres, but these are ultimately matters for the banks. But it is important that businesses and customers have the ability to pay in money and make cash withdrawals within their communities. So, where the banks are failing to accommodate this, we know that the Post Office is serving an important role, with 95 per cent of all UK banking customers having access to their bank accounts via the post office. What I’d be more concerned about is if there were any announcement by Post Office in the future about closing post office branches, because that removes, of course, the only banking function that remains in so many communities.

First Minister, footfall has decreased in Welsh high streets. By comparison, footfall to out-of-town shopping centres has increased by 4.6 per cent according to information from last year. Now, the Welsh Retail Consortium has called for local authorities and retailers to work together to market a high-street identity effectively. Also, they want local authorities to have more flexibility with regard to the planning system. So, can I ask you: how do you think the planning system can help to be more supportive to high streets?

We know that it’s hugely important that local authorities, when they develop their LDPs, look at how they can assist existing retail centres, including high streets. But it’s about more than that. It is hugely important for town centres to develop their own identity; how many town centres have a website? If I were to go to a town in Wales, can I find out what’s there? Is there a website? Have the traders got their own websites? And, of course, the reason why people go to out-of-town shopping centres is sheer convenience—they’re open. And they’re open particularly on Sundays when most people, these days, tend to shop. So, it’s hugely important that high-street retailers look flexibly at their opening hours as well. This isn’t 40 years ago when people went to shop in the week in the daytime and shops were open. In the main, people are shopping 6, 7, 8 o’clock at night, and they’re shopping on Sundays when a lot of high streets are closed, so there needs to be some flexibility as well with traders to make sure that they align their opening hours—there’s a limit to what they can do as sole traders—with the work patterns that people have now, not the work patterns people had, say, 30 or 40 years ago. It’s hugely important as well, as part of the LDP process, that sufficient room is given in town centres for more living accommodation and more office space. If you have the office workers during the day, you’ve got the footfall during the day to help the retailers.

Mike Hedges mentioned the closure of high-street banks and you mentioned post offices. Another important part of district shopping areas is sometimes the local pub. I wondered if there was any update regarding the Welsh Government’s talks with the Campaign for Real Ale, I believe, about how to protect community pubs.

I have to declare an interest as a CAMRA member at this point. It’s a tricky issue because we know that, in planning terms, it’s not difficult to change the use of a pub to another commercial or retail use. That said, of course, quite often pubs are not sold and they become derelict because they’re empty after a while, so it’s not an easy issue to resolve. We know, and even CAMRA itself recognises, there are still too many pubs, given people’s current social habits. What’s hugely important is to be able to work with the market-leading pubs—there are many of them, some small, some big—in order to provide a good example to others. But, ultimately, it’s a question of ensuring that the pubs are able to offer the widest range of services possible to customers. I’ve been to countries where the pubs double up as shops—in Wales, actually. I think Cwmdu is one example, near Llandeilo, where the pub is also a shop. So, looking at ways in which pubs can also act as business hubs in communities, where the local shop can be, possibly, the post office—that’s one way forward to ensure that pubs have a viable future.

‘Together for Mental Health’, our cross-Government mental health strategy, and the related 2016-19 delivery plan set out our priorities for improving the mental health and well-being of people in Wales.

Thank you. Two weeks ago I was proud to speak alongside the health Secretary at the first-year celebrations of Valleys Steps, a community projects that seeks to improve emotional well-being through mindfulness and stress control courses. Now, Valleys Steps has helped nearly 2,000 people during their first year, and Mental Health Awareness Week seems an appropriate time to celebrate their success. With one in four people experiencing mental health issues, what best practice can the Welsh Government draw from Valleys Steps and promote amongst other health boards across Wales?

Well, Valleys Steps is an innovative approach: it aims to improve mental health and reduce antidepressant prescribing. I do congratulate them on reaching their first anniversary, and we are keen to spread the word of innovative models such as this to encourage similar collaboration to support people with mental health problems, and that work, then, will inform new initiatives, including the development of the well-being bond and the social prescribing pilots. So, we’ll consider the work of organisations such as Valleys Steps in order to ensure that what we are doing is strengthened as a result of looking at their experience.

First Minister, a number of deaths by suicide have occurred in the recent past in schools in my constituency. Now, earlier this year, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made an announcement that every secondary school in England should be offered mental health first aid training, which teaches people how to identify young people who might be developing a mental health issue, and this policy has been very well received by charities and professionals especially, and we must remember that many young people do struggle with issues such as anorexia and self-harming as well as suicidal thoughts. And I just wondered, First Minister, if you might consider a similar initiative to go on in our schools to try to prevent these wasteful deaths.

Well, I did note the Prime Minister’s announcement recently where she talked about having somebody in every school in England and Wales. I know that was a mistake on her part, and the idea behind what she suggested is one worthy of examination. But, of course, what I remind the Member of is that we have a counsellor in every secondary school in Wales already able to provide that service. I think the trick is not just to provide the counsellor, but to ensure that young people feel able to go and see that counsellor. And that’s a more difficult nut to crack. Actually going to see somebody and people maybe finding out, even though it’s confidential—young people see it that way. That can be quite a step for them as well.

We already have the counsellors in schools, but that’s not enough of itself. We also need to make sure, of course, that young people are able to access assistance outside school as well, particularly in an environment where they feel comfortable.

Does the First Minister truly understand how much of a crisis there is facing us in terms of mental health care in Wales? In Ynys Môn, I understand that there is now not a single psychiatric consultant for mental health patients between 18 and 65 years of age. Mental health professionals are working under huge pressures that they can’t cope with and they fear that they are having to make decisions that will be a risk to patients. The shortage of beds means that people are taken as far as London to be treated or receive care. There are dozens of children and young people who are sent to England for treatment, and over 200 mental health patients in north Wales have been transferred out of Wales in the last 22 months. The whole system is on its knees. When will the Government take action in order to safeguard some of my most vulnerable constituents?

I do not accept the figures that the Member has listed in the Chamber. First of all I must say that the funding for mental health has gone up to £629 million for the ensuing financial year, and that is safeguarded. Health boards have attained their targets as regards mental health services and have actually exceeded them in some areas in the past 12 months. And of course although more people are transferred into CAMHS, the health boards are confident that the situation will demonstrate that every CAMHS service in every part of Wales attained the 28-day target before they get a new appointment. And so very many improvements have taken place over the past year.

Well, of course, there is business to be discussed before 8 June, which has interfered at the moment, but I do discuss EU issues in bilateral meetings—trilateral meetings, I hope—with the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Wouldn’t the First Minister agree that these tripartite discussions are more important than ever, given what’s contained within this White Paper with a sky-blue cover on exiting the European Union, produced by the UK Government, which mentions the situation post Brexit that the powers that the EU currently has in terms of common frameworks will return to the UK, allowing the rules to be set there by democratically elected Members? What’s happening to us in this place? How are our views in the devolved administrations to be part of those discussions?

Wel, fy marn i yw hwn: dylai’r pwerau hynny ddod i bobl Cymru ac nid eistedd yn San Steffan nac yn Whitehall. Mae’n hollbwysig i gael fframweithiau mewn rhai rhannau sef pysgodfeydd, er enghraifft, ond dylai’r fframweithiau hynny gael eu cytuno, ac nid cael eu rhoi ar bobl heb eu bod nhw’n cytuno. Rhaid cofio, os ydym ni’n mynd i gael marchnad sengl tu fewn i’r Deyrnas Unedig—ac rydw i’n cyd-fynd â hynny—mae’n rhaid cael rheolau. Os nad ydym yn berchen y rheolau, nid ydym yn mynd i gymryd sylw ohonyn nhw. Ac yn ail, wrth gwrs, os oes rheolau, pwy sy’n mynd i blismona’r rheolau hynny heb fod yna lys yn gwneud hynny? So mae yna lawer o gwestiynau sydd heb eu hateb ar hyn o bryd. Mae rhai yn Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn meddwl bod pethau yn mynd i symud yn ôl i fel roedden nhw yn 1972, ond nid felly yw’r Deyrnas Unedig dim rhagor. Nid gwlad gydag un Llywodraeth yw’r Deyrnas Unedig dim rhagor ac mae lot fawr o waith i’w wneud er mwyn sicrhau bod y pwerau hyn yn dod i gael eu trosglwyddo o Frwsel i Gymru ac nid mynd drwy Lundain.

When the external affairs committee visited Brussels last year, we met with the Canadian trade delegation and I was struck by the role of the Canadian provinces in the negotiation and the approval of the CETA deal with the European Union. We also know, of course, since then, of the role of the Wallonian Parliament in approving the deal. Trade negotiations with the EU and, indeed, beyond are going to become increasingly important for Wales and the UK, and they’re about much more than foreign affairs and the Crown prerogative; they’re about the bread-and-butter issues of daily economic life. So, does he agree with me that future trade negotiations, both with the EU and beyond, should include a voice for Wales and the other devolved administrations in the negotiation and approval of those agreements that are so fundamental to our economic well-being?

Yes, I do. Even though trade, of course, per se, is not devolved, it’s hugely important that we have a strong voice, because we may be called on to implement the results of any trade agreement, even though we might virulently oppose any particular part of a trade agreement. That is hugely important. So, for example, if there were to be a free trade agreement with New Zealand or Australia, that would have a massive impact on our farmers. Even though that’s not devolved, I’m sure nobody would argue rationally that somehow we have no locus in putting forward a view in that regard. We heard voices from Australia over the last few weeks saying that it was not possible to have a free trade agreement with Australia and protect the interests of Welsh hill farmers. Well, that I know, because if we have a free trade agreement in terms of agriculture, then, for many of our Welsh hill farmers, they will have no future. It is hugely important that the Welsh Government and this Assembly are able to express a very strong view and influence, and reject, actually, parts of trade agreements that will have a hugely adverse impact on our own farmers.

The issue raised by the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd is crucial, and it’s been identified for several months now that the future governance of the UK’s internal market will give an indication of the future of the constitution of this country. So, can I ask the First Minister what progress he has made in terms of persuading his counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree that the future UK internal market should be governed jointly by the nations of the UK, and should not be imposed upon us by Whitehall?

There are differing views amongst the Governments. The view in Scotland is, basically, ‘Independence will resolve the issue.’ The view in Northern Ireland is mixed. Certainly, I’ve heard the former First Minister of Northern Ireland say there shouldn’t be any state aid rules at all. Now, we have to come to a position, which I think is perfectly reasonable, where we all say where powers are transferred back from Brussels, they come to the devolved administrations. I see no reason why that can’t be agreed—the First Minister of Scotland is in agreement with me on that, so we’re in the same position. My view is, and I’ve not heard a voice dissenting from this, that if we are to have an internal single market, the rules have to be agreed and they have to be policed by an independent adjudication body, not by the UK Government. How can the UK Government police it anyway? If we decide to ignore them, there’s nothing they can do. Now, that’s in nobody’s interests. We have to have a clear system. We have to have faith in a system that is seen as genuinely independent—not as we have now in the JMC dispute resolution process where, if there is a dispute between ourselves and the UK Treasury, ultimately it is resolved by the UK Treasury. Those days have to go. This can be done perfectly sensibly and perfectly properly in order to safeguard the interests of Wales.

Yes, up-to-date advice for trips is produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That advice is also signposted in the all-Wales guidance for education visits, written by the outdoor education advisers’ panel for Wales and the Health and Safety Executive, and that is accessible from the Welsh Government’s website.

On several occasions, I’ve implored the Government to intervene further in the case of Glyn Summers, who lost his life on a foreign college trip to Spain. Glyn’s parents, with great dignity, have demanded full transparency in terms of the woeful investigation that followed their son’s death, and they believe that there should be an automatic right to an independent investigation in such circumstances. In his last letter to me on this matter, the First Minister said he did not believe there is anything further that he can do with regard to their concerns, but since then, the public services ombudsman has found that the investigation into Glyn’s death was flawed. The ombudsman has called on the local authority to apologise to Glyn’s parents and have further called on the Welsh Government to review its policies further. Will the First Minister say sorry and will he reconsider his opposition to the right to a full and independent investigation into death and serious injuries on foreign field trips?

The Member misrepresents the position that I gave. First of all, it was an awful event that occurred, and it’s been a very hugely difficult few years, as we can all imagine, for Glyn’s parents. The matter has rested with the ombudsman. The ombudsman has now reported. There are recommendations for us as a Government, and we will, of course, take those recommendations exceptionally seriously. The issue for me was: was there anything else that we could do as a Government that would add to what the ombudsman has already found as part of his investigations? I will keep that as an open question, because I think these things have to be looked at hugely carefully, and as a result of the ombudsman’s findings, I’ll look once again to see whether there’s anything more that can be done following the report itself.

I’d like to echo Steffan Lewis’s concerns, and also offer my condolences to the family of Glyn Summers. I think the question is: how can the Welsh Government ensure that schools are able to reflect on occurrences—those rare occurrences—when something adverse happens on school trips? And the First Minister said he’d keep it as an open question. Would he be willing to elaborate on how schools can learn from each other in these circumstances?

The ombudsman’s recommendation is that he will invite us as a Government to consider reviewing our policies and guidance in respect of educational visits abroad. As part of that process of review, it’s hugely important to understand where the best practice lies, to consult, once again, with the outdoor education advisers’ panel, in order to make sure that the recommendation that the ombudsman has put to us is satisfied in full.

I share the concerns that have already been expressed in the Chamber, and, of course, the sympathy to the family of Glyn Summers, but would you agree with me, First Minister, that we need to get the balance right here in respect of any changes that might need to be made, going forward, to improve the risk-assessment processes regarding school trips? Because we do want people to be able to access an enriched educational experience by taking part in trips, so it’s important that any change to Welsh Government guidance, any local education authority guidance or, indeed, any regional consortia guidance, is something that doesn’t prohibit trips from taking place and is fair and proportionate to all those taking part.

I couldn’t disagree with the words that the Member has used, but in these circumstances, there has been a death. It’s hugely important that there is as much transparency as possible, and that as much information as possible is used in order to strengthen policies as far as the future is concerned, but, yes, of course nobody would want to see a situation where school trips don’t take place because of what are seen as regulations that are overly burdensome. But it is important, in the circumstances that we’ve outlined today, that a full investigation leads to a full set of recommendations in order to minimise—we can never remove risk; it’s impossible; life is not like that—but to minimise any potential risk in the future.

Those powers are to be found in our draft government and laws in Wales Bill, which we published.

Okay. Thank you for your answer. I note that earlier you pledged not to increase income tax during the term of this Assembly, but will you also pledge to use your devolved powers to reduce costs to businesses, so that employers can start being attracted to Wales and providing much-needed jobs?

I’m not sure what powers she’s referring to. Many of the issues she refers to are not devolved. Business rates are—that’s true—but in terms of issues such as national insurance or corporation tax, they are not devolved. We know we will see some devolution of income tax in the course of the coming year, but from our perspective, we have a very good record: we have unemployment that’s lower than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of course we’ve just recently had the best figures for foreign direct investment for 30 years.

First Minister, as Michelle Brown has just said, the Wales Act—the current legislation—will of course deliver a range of new fiscal powers for the Welsh Government, ranging from borrowing to income tax powers and stamp duty. Whatever you want to do with those taxes in the future—whether you want to leave them where they are, raise them, or lower them—will be dependent on a strong Welsh Revenue Authority, and that’s currently in the process of being set up, and the Finance Committee has been looking at that. Are you happy with the progress being made with the development of that authority? And what mechanisms do you have in place to make sure that that progress keeps on track, because it’s, clearly, vitally important?

We have no concerns about the progress of the Welsh Revenue Authority. We know that it will be in place in good time for next year. Of course we need to ensure that when taxes are devolved, there’s an authority in place to make sure that those taxes can be collected. We’ve understood that there is a pressure on Government, and that pressure we have met. We’re confident that when the time comes next year, the Welsh Revenue Authority will be in place and ready to start its work.

Prif Weinidog, will you distance yourself from comments made by Diane Abbot MP, Labour’s shadow Home Secretary, who told BBC Radio Wales last week that the Labour Party did not think it was, quote, ‘right at this time’ to devolve policing to Wales? Have you asked Diane Abbott why she feels that the Welsh Government, uniquely, is less capable than the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives in terms of delivering police services? The Welsh Government, packed full of Labour elected representatives, as I’m sure you’re aware—whereas in fact the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives have no such lumbar encumbrances.

I’m fully aware of the fact that the people of Wales decided that there should be a Labour-led Government in Wales last year. I thank him for reminding me of that. I do not agree that policing shouldn’t be devolved. Policing should be devolved. There is a debate in this Chamber tomorrow afternoon when the issue will become clear in terms of the way that votes occur. There’s no reason at all—not at all—why policing should be devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, should be devolved to Manchester, to London, but not to Wales. There is no rational reason for that to be the case. We know that there will need to be co-operation in terms of counter-terrorism; there are some issues that need to be dealt with at UK level. When it comes to community policing, why is it that Wales is seen as a second-class nation by the Tories?

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt, to make the statement.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have two changes to report to the timing of business this week. I’ve reduced the length of today’s debate on Stage 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Bill to 120 minutes. Likewise, Counsel General questions tomorrow have been reduced to 30 minutes. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, I’m sure you’ll join with me in congratulating the many local councillors who’ve been elected across the length and breadth of Wales, but in particular the ones who have been elected in the Vale of Glamorgan, and in particular from the Conservatives, who now make us the biggest group on that particular council, and, hopefully, looking forward to an exciting five years in the Vale of Glamorgan. One of the issues that you—[Interruption.] One of the issues—. I hear the Member for Blaenau Gwent chuntering away there. I don’t think he had a particularly good night on Thursday. One of the big issues, as you’ll be aware as the constituency Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, was the Barry incinerator. This, time and time again, came up in the local elections on the doorstep in Barry, and there was widespread concern, in particular, around the need for an environmental impact assessment, which wasn’t undertaken at the time—and that was allowed through by the council—and also the ability for Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board to do a full assessment of the health implications. Given that Barry, as a town, has a higher than average national incidence of asthma within the community there, would you commit to issuing a statement on behalf of the Welsh Government, because I think you’re undertaking the duties of the planning Minister at the moment, as to exactly what measures the Welsh Government is taking to address some of these concerns that are raised time and time again by constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan around the lack of an environmental impact assessment and, in particular, an assessment by Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board into high incidences of asthma and the potential effect that an incinerator might have within the locality, and, above all, the role that Natural Resources Wales are now playing in assessing the licensing of the plant, where many people do call into question the ability and the robustness of that system to actually meet and address local concerns? I would further ask for a statement in relation to how the Welsh Government is going to engage with the new Vale council to deliver a Dinas Powys bypass. In fairness to the economy Minister, he has indicated in previous correspondence to myself last year that he was up for working with the council to make resources available to address the chronic traffic problems that exist in the Dinas Powys area that saw the removal of four Plaid Cymru councillors and their replacement by four Conservative councillors who will work night and day to make sure that these issues are addressed.

I think the first question you ask, Andrew R.T. Davies, on the Barry incinerator—. I’m very glad, in fact—and, indeed, it is in my Assembly Member capacity—to report on the fact that I chaired a meeting last night, a meeting that was attended by a delegation from the Docks Incinerator Action Group, with senior officials from Natural Resources Wales, and I put out a statement today, which was agreed by all there last night. This was a very constructive meeting in order to make sure—the First Minister came to Barry, as you know, and had a very robust exchange with members of the public at his Carwyn Connect meeting where, as a result, we were able to then move forward in getting an extension on the consultation of the environmental permit, and, of course, that extension has been agreed by Natural Resources Wales.

What is very important and was discussed last night—and the points put to Natural Resources—is that they will, and agreed to, and, indeed, it is their duty to, fully consider the impact of proposals on public health and the environment. Indeed, of course, there will be further opportunities for consultation on that, as they now, later in the week, issue a schedule 5—we saw a draft of it last night—that asks further questions to the company, Biomass 2, in terms of the concerns not only that the public have raised during this consultation period, but also Natural Resources Wales themselves. So, I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to give that very constructive update on that very constructive meeting last night. And we, indeed, agreed to meet again, and I’m sure you will hear that from the Docks Incinerator Action Group.

On your second point, of course, yes, the Vale council, the new Vale council, will have many challenges to face ahead of them in terms of difficult decisions. I’m very proud of the fact that a Labour-led Vale council for the last five years actually was deemed to be the best performing local authority in Wales, and very proud of the councillors, the new Labour councillors, who were also elected on Thursday. But, clearly, the priorities lie ahead, and the challenges, for the new Vale council.

I’m sure many Members saw the Conservative party’s targeting of key regional publications all over the UK last Friday, including newspapers in north Wales and the ‘South Wales Echo’, with paid-for front page advertising wraps that gave a misleading impression of political bias to the readers. So, could the leader of the house arrange for a debate on electoral coverage in the print media and the need for balance and fairness in reflecting Welsh politics?

I think that many of us have had to suffer these wraparounds that have appeared in many of our constituencies across Wales. I will make some very factual points about the fact that political advertising isn’t covered by the Advertising Standards Authority. It’s not permitted, as Members will be aware, on television under the Communications Act 2003, but is allowed in print. It was covered by the ASA until 1999, when the Committee of Advertising Practice decided to exclude it. Also, the Human Rights Act 1998 did lead to concerns about controls on freedom of political expression. But I think the crucial point as well that has to be made is that costs of advertising must be declared in central party election returns to the Electoral Commission. So, that is an important point for public scrutiny. But none of those factual points mean that there shouldn’t be a debate on this issue, of course, and, if there was widespread support for that from across the Chamber, I think we would want to move forward. Because, clearly, the need for balance and fairness in reflecting Welsh politics is what we all seek to achieve.

Leader of the house, last week, we had a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children highlighting the statistics regarding grass fires across Wales and the reduction we saw. That was very welcome news, but two days later there was a huge grass fire within my constituency, which damaged a lot of the Mynydd Dinas areas. Can you also join me in thanking the firefighters for the work that they did? The efforts they put in made sure that that fire was controlled and maintained, and that no property was damaged. But can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary perhaps on discussions that he has had with the fire and rescue services as to the strategies they’re putting in place to ensure we keep that down to a minimum, and, when one occurs, how we’ll respond to it to ensure that minimal or no damage is done?

On a second point, this morning we actually received a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport regarding nurse training here in Wales. I very much welcome the announcement of an additional year of nurse bursaries to support the development of nurses here in Wales, compared to what’s happening in England, but can we actually have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary perhaps to look at the other areas that we need to look at, which is the specialist nurses in paediatrics, mental health and neonatal, and what the Government is going to do to support them in those areas? Perhaps he can actually add on whether he will then further support the bursaries for the nurses, because he's only made it for one year, and it would be nice to see it actually committed for the remainder of this Assembly term.

And, on a final point, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, could we have a statement from him on steel? Now, last week, we had the news that IG Metall, the trade union in Germany, was very concerned about the possible merger between Thyssenkrupp and Tata and, as such, that merger might fail. Can we have a statement as to what discussions he’s having with Tata to look at the implications for steelmaking here in Wales and what’ll happen to our Welsh steel plants?

Three important questions from David Rees, and, in response to your first question, yes, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children did issue a statement last week following a number of very serious grass fires, and I think we need to firstly start by thanking the firefighters for their courage and bravery particularly, and not just in terms of the most recent fire that, unfortunately, occurred, but across Wales, affecting so many of our constituencies. It is a difficult one in terms of fire and rescue services—fully engaged, as you could see from the statement by the Cabinet Secretary, in addressing the way forward in terms of prevention as well as control.

I think your second point is very important in terms of part of the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport of a major new recruitment campaign, launched to increase the number of nurses in the Welsh NHS, which everyone would welcome, I'm sure, across this Chamber. But, of course, this is a recruitment campaign led by this Welsh Government. And, of course, that will have to seek the recruitment of nurses across the board in terms of general, specialist, and also, I would say, primary care as well, because we have to recognise the increasingly important role played by the practice nurse and the nurse specialists that we see at primary as well as secondary and specialist level. But also the most important announcement of the arrangements for the NHS bursary scheme—. He made it clear that Wales is open to business, and we are supporting our nurses, we're interested in how we can support their education and training programmes in Wales, and also looking at how they can ensure that those arrangements that are now put in place for the coming financial year—and then, as his statement says, looking towards further considering longer-term arrangements in light of the outcomes of the Diamond review, with full consultation. A very good news story for our nurses and for those young people and mature students who are considering going into nursing.

Your third point: yes, I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will want to update on progress in terms of Tata and the steelworks, which, of course, particularly affect your constituency.

I wonder if we can find time for a debate, ideally in the next couple of weeks, on the Welsh Government's role in community safety. We all know, as Assembly Members within this house of all parties, the importance of community safety, particularly in terms of a uniformed presence on the front line, and I was fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to spend 13 weeks on the Home Office Bill that introduced the police community safety officers, which the Welsh Government—I looked from a distance at the time—invested heavily in the year after year, consistently. And even though I do recall on that committee they were argued against vociferously by Conservatives at the time, they now seem to be universally welcomed, so it's a good step forward. But, such a debate, if we had it in the next couple of weeks, would also allow us to discuss, then, investment not just in PCSOs, but also in front-line police officers and the commitment that UK Labour has made to introduce 800 more on our streets—800 more bobbies on the beat—if we were to win the general election.

Well, I think the fact that we have, against stark financial challenges as a result of Tory UK Government cuts and austerity—against all of that, we have chosen as a priority, this Welsh Labour Government, to continue to support our 500 community support officers. And what is very clear is that those community support officers play an important role in supporting the police forces across Wales, and they play such a visible role in our communities, engaging in the very point you made about addressing and safeguarding community safety, particularly in the areas where, in fact, people are experiencing that disadvantage, that difficulty, in terms of the need for community safety. We do, of course, see this as a real priority, and it just shows again what our value base is to our communities as a Welsh Labour Government.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 on the agenda is the debate on the general principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Hoffwn i ddechrau drwy ddiolch i Gadeiryddion y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol a’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol am eu gwaith wrth iddyn nhw graffu’n fanwl ar y Bil drwy gydol Cyfnod 1. Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd i Gadeirydd ac aelodau’r Pwyllgor Cyllid. Hoffwn i hefyd ddiolch i’r rhanddeiliaid a’r partneriaid cymdeithasol sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y broses graffu, gan roi tystiolaeth ysgrifenedig a llafar i’r pwyllgor, a chyfrannu at ein hymgynghoriad i ddefnyddio gweithwyr asiantaethau yn ystod gweithredu diwydiannol.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I set out the purposes of this Bill on introduction in January, and do not intend simply to go over the same ground this afternoon. In summary, the Bill will disapply a number of provisions in the UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, ensuring that they do not apply to devolved public services. These provisions include check-off, facility time and ballot thresholds. We do that in order to defend and promote the successful model of social partnership in Wales, carefully and consistently developed by successive Welsh Governments, involving three different political parties elected to the National Assembly since 1999.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me also place on record again that this Bill will be unaffected by the commencement of the Wales Act 2017 next year. This Bill has been introduced and will be enacted under the current devolution settlement. Provided the Bill has reached the end of Stage 1 by the time the Wales Act is commenced, it can proceed through this Assembly. Under the current timetable, this Bill, if it succeeds, will have not simply reached the end of Stage 1, but will have reached Royal Assent before the Wales Act comes into force.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in late March, I wrote to the committees with my decision to bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Stage 2 to prohibit the use of agency workers to cover industrial action in public services following consultation late last year. This additional information was intended to assist the relevant committees to scrutinise the legislative options in their deliberations, and I hope that our consultation process, flagging the prospective action in this area, was able to provide them with the scope for informed discussions with social partners about the proposals. I look forward to the scrutiny of this policy aspect of the Bill during the rest of the Assembly process.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there are only a small number of recommendations from either committee, and I’m therefore happy to provide a summary response to them in this debate, having written to both committees to address some of the more technical issues raised in their reports. First of all, can I say that I’m grateful for the overwhelming support from social partners, and from the ELGC committee in bringing this Bill forward? That committee’s report contained a single formal recommendation: for this Assembly to support the general principles of the Bill this afternoon. The committee also welcomed the commitment to bring forward a Stage 2 amendment, noting their belief that it would strengthen the Bill and would be entirely consistent with its stated purpose and intended effect. That recommendation reflects the overwhelming evidence, I believe, received by the committee, and I welcome very much its report.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee made three recommendations. The first asked that I explain in this debate why I had not included the proposed amendment to the Bill at an earlier stage, and I’m happy to do that, of course. The answer lies in the nature and timing of decision making at Westminster. The Government elected there in May of 2015 passed an Act against the advice of its own law officers, of the Welsh Government and of this National Assembly, which imposed arrangements on public services that are devolved to Wales. At every step in that process, our opposition was made known. My party, and others elected here, was elected with a manifesto commitment to bring legislation before the Assembly to reverse those changes.

Alongside their Bill proposals, in the summer of 2015, the UK Government also consulted separately on proposals to rescind regulation 7 of the employment agencies regulations, which prohibit employment agencies supplying agency workers to cover industrial action. At the point of the National Assembly elections in May of last year, no outcome of that consultation had been reported. Because the National Assembly had not, therefore, previously expressed a view on the matter, and because it was not set out in any manifesto, I decided that a separate consultation on this matter would be required. That consultation has concluded and my decision in relation to it has been made known to the committees. The two aspects will come together, should a Government amendment at Stage 2 succeed. And, as I noted earlier, the ELGC committee supported that approach.

Recommendations 2 and 3 of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report are about the power in section 2(2) of the Bill to make transitional and saving provisions. This power was included at the time of publication, because, at that point, it was not known how the UK Government would go about commencing its Trade Union Act 2016, which included similar powers. Sensibly, I think, we mirrored those powers in our own drafting. I said to the committee when I appeared before it that we will probably not need to make transitional provisions. Now that the relevant provisions in the UK Act are in force, we can see, indeed, that those powers will not be needed. As it is a power that is now without a purpose, I’m happy to say this afternoon that I will bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to remove it, and thus address the recommendations in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report.

Dirprwy Lywydd, mae llawer iawn mwy yn yr adroddiadau pwyllgor, ac rwyf wedi ymateb yn fy llythyrau at Gadeiryddion y pwyllgorau. Hoffwn ddiolch iddyn nhw unwaith eto am roi ystyriaeth fanwl i’r Bil yn ystod Cyfnod 1, ac am wneud hynny mewn ysbryd mor adeiladol. Er fy mod yn disgwyl i’r Bil achosi rhwyg rhwng y pleidiau yma yn y Siambr, yr hyn sy’n glir oddi wrth y dystiolaeth a gafwyd gan randdeiliaid a phartneriaid cymdeithasol yw bod consensws llethol o blaid y Bil.

Mae fy ymateb y prynhawn yma yn cael ei wneud yn ysbryd y consensws hwnnw, ac rwyf wedi mynd ati hefyd i ymdrin ag argymhellion y pwyllgorau gerbron yr Aelodau. Fel yr argymhellwyd gan y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol, rwy’n gofyn i’r Aelodau gymeradwyo’r Bil y prynhawn yma. Yn y ffordd yma, gallwn ni barhau i fynd i’r afael ag unrhyw faterion yn ymwneud â’r gweithlu drwy weithio ar sail partneriaeth gymdeithasol, gan ddarparu gwell gwasanaethau cyhoeddus i ddinasyddion Cymru. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. I’d like to thank all those who provided evidence to the committee to help inform its work, including those who took time out to attend our focus group discussions.

The UK Government’s Trade Union Bill, introduced at Westminster in 2015, aroused considerable controversy and heated debate. In carrying out our scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill, we consulted widely with stakeholders and sought a range of views, including those of organisations that publicly supported the UK Government’s legislation. We focused our efforts on testing the Welsh Government’s assertion that the provisions in the Trade Union Act that the Bill seeks to disapply would have an adverse impact on the social partnership in Wales, and on the effective delivery of devolved public services.

We find ourselves in the unusual position today of presenting a report that contains a single recommendation—that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. This recommendation, supported by seven out of eight committee members, is based on the overwhelming support for the Bill in the evidence we received. It is unusual for a committee not to be recommending amendments at Stage 1 scrutiny, but that is the case.

Technically speaking, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Bill is straightforward. It disapplies specific provisions of the 2016 Act to devolved Welsh authorities. It does what it needs to do simply and, we believe, effectively. The Bill itself is a short Bill of three sections. But we know that the length of a Bill is no marker for its importance, and this Bill is no exception. On the contrary, we heard that without this Bill, the 40 per cent ballot threshold, which is already in force in Wales, combined with the future changes to check-off and facility time, pose a real and imminent threat to social partnership.

It is this social partnership that respondents told us is essential to the management and delivery of public services in Wales, particularly in the face of continuing financial challenges and ongoing transformational change. It is this social partnership that, the NHS in Wales told us, had

‘supported the development of effective and mutually beneficial solutions to significant challenges’

that the service had addressed. It is this social partnership that, local government told us, had

‘played a significant part in ensuring that service continuity has been at the heart of some difficult decisions’

in recent years. It is unsurprising, then, that those organisations directly responsible for delivering services to our communities were keen for this social partnership to be preserved. They firmly believed that the Bill was needed to ensure this.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I will speak briefly about the Bill’s substantive provisions. There was widespread support in evidence for disapplying the restrictions in the 2016 Act on check-off. Respondents reported that check-off arrangements were well established, efficient, of benefit to all parties and were of minimal cost to employers. At best, restrictions are likely to be an inconvenience for trade unions and employers. At worst, they could result in the withdrawal of check-off, which could ultimately weaken density of union membership and hinder unions’ ability to operate effectively as social partners. The restrictions single out trade union subscriptions from other payments made by employers on behalf of employees. They are unnecessary, unwarranted and we see no valid reason to apply them to devolved authorities in Wales.

We heard that access to facility time is essential to enable trade union representatives not only to carry out their duties around individual representation and collective bargaining, but to engage in the wider public service improvement agenda. We also heard compelling evidence about the benefits of facility time and the associated potential cost savings. This leaves us in no doubt that facility time is a prudent investment in public services and should be viewed as such. If trade unions are to continue to operate effectively as social partners and to contribute to the improvement agenda, then the existing arrangements for facility time must be safeguarded.

It is clear that the crux of any successful partnership is a balance between partners. The 40 per cent ballot threshold will undoubtedly undermine the ability of trade unions to engage with employers as equal partners. The right to undertake industrial action is an important element in the principle of collective bargaining. Without this right, or, in the case of the 2016 Act, where this right is inhibited by means of the additional ballot threshold, it will be much more difficult for unions to negotiate on behalf of their members. We do not believe that this is in the best interest of partnership working. We heard about the very real danger that the additional threshold would lead to heightened industrial tensions and could inadvertently increase the likelihood and duration of industrial action.

Moving on to agency workers, Dirprwy Lywydd, we heard that a move by the UK Government to lift the existing ban on using agency workers as cover during industrial action would have a similar effect on the social partnership as the 40 per cent ballot threshold requirement. And so, we welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s commitment to amending the Bill to ensure that the prohibition continues, regardless of the outcome of the UK Government’s considerations on this issue.

In conclusion, we are in no doubt that the relevant provisions in the 2016 Act will all, to varying degrees, adversely impact on the social partnership and, in turn, on the continued delivery and improvement of devolved public services. In recognition of this, we support the general principles of the Bill and we recommend that Members here today do the same.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m grateful as well that I’m following my colleague, John Griffiths, who has covered in detail the policy context that his committee has considered. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has a much more narrow remit in looking at this Bill and I’m going to speak to that particular remit. Can I, in so doing, thank, as always, my fellow committee members for their very robust and diligent scrutiny of this small Bill, as it went forward, but very important Bill in the matters that we considered, and also thank the Cabinet Secretary for making himself available for quite robust questioning and also for his robust and considered answers?

We reported on this Bill on 7 April, and the report is available both in hard copy and online. I recommend it not only to Assembly Member colleagues but also to members of the public who are interested and other interested observers to the progress of this particular Bill.

When we reported on the Bill on 7 April, we made three recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary. I’ll go to those in detail but, before doing so, if I could quickly make some general remarks, which are important on the clarity of our consideration of this particular Bill. As with our scrutiny of all Bills, we consider matters relating to the competence of the National Assembly. However, in doing so, and as we state in our report, it is not our role to express a view on whether a Bill is within or outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Rather, it is to highlight any issues that Assembly Members may wish to take into account in deciding whether to agree to the general principles of the Bill or to table or support amendments during the later stages of scrutiny.

So, on this Bill, we explored the Llywydd’s statement on competence, which she is obliged to provide, with the Cabinet Secretary. As part of her statement, the Llywydd indicated that while the Bill was, in her opinion, within the Assembly’s competence, she noted that the issues were not straightforward and that her consideration was, in her words, a finely balanced one.

Now, our report highlights the evidence we took from the Cabinet Secretary and the questioning and the evidence we heard, and I hope that that will be helpful to Assembly Members in making their decisions on this Bill. But ultimately, any question about whether a Bill such as this falls within the legislative competence of this National Assembly could indeed ultimately be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide if the competence is duly challenged.

So, I turn now to our three recommendations. Our first recommendation relates to the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to table an amendment to the Bill at Stage 2 to prohibit the use of agency workers during strike action on Welsh public authorities. Now, our preference as a committee, as we state in the report, is that a provision of such policy significance should ideally have been included within the Bill on its introduction. Including the provision on its introduction would have allowed the Cabinet Secretary to take account of a committee report that explores and considers the views of stakeholders on the use of agency workers during strike action. Whilst we do acknowledge that the Welsh Government undertook its own consultation on this specific proposal, as the Cabinet Secretary has outlined today, such a consultation is a different process from a committee of the National Assembly engaging with the principles and the actual wording of a Bill as part 1 of the Stage 1 legislative scrutiny process.

So, our first recommendation sought an explanation from the Cabinet Secretary about why the Bill did not include a provision on its introduction about the use of agency workers during strike action, and, in a similar vein, we asked why the Bill could not have been the subject, perhaps, of a short delay to accommodate such a position. But I am very grateful today for the Cabinet Secretary’s detailed response and further explanation and justification. I note that, as we’ve just heard, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee—whether through serendipity or, otherwise, perfect planning, I don’t know—was able, indeed, to take evidence on this issue during its own Stage 1 scrutiny and incorporate it within that, including wide stakeholder engagement, and that is reassuring in terms of our first recommendation.

And the second and third recommendations we made relate to the single power contained in section 2 of the Bill to make subordinate legislation. And, as we've heard from the remarks of the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon, great reassurance on that, and I welcome the proposed changes to the Bill that the Cabinet Secretary has outlined this afternoon when he was on his feet. Our analysis of this Bill is very technical and very precise and narrow in its remit, but I do recommend to Assembly Members the report if it will help them in their consideration.

It is somewhat regrettable that I do feel the need to stand and fundamentally oppose the general principles of introducing this Bill through the National Assembly for Wales. I do so on behalf of the Welsh Conservative Assembly group, but also on behalf of our taxpayers in Wales. Last year, the UK Government Trade Union Act 2016 was passed by Royal Assent after considerable consultation and engagement with our front-line workers, trade unions and with a clear mandate from the voting population of our country. [Interruption.] It was in the manifesto. The UK Act sets out provisions on turnout and support for strike action, a transparent process for subscriptions, and the requirement that payroll deductions for subscriptions are only administered where the cost is not funded by the public. Now, the Trade Union (Wales) Bill seeks to disapply sections of that Act here in Wales.

Now, as the first piece of legislation introduced by the Welsh Labour Government this year, this Bill is considered unnecessary, burdensome and costly, and I think taxpayers will be dismayed to know the time and energy that's been put into this, and cost, which could have been put into developing an autism Bill for Wales, or legislating to address the many and significant failings of this Welsh Labour Government.

Openness and transparency over the actual cost of trade unions and public service workers undertaking union activities is essential.

Will you take an intervention?

No.

Ultimately, funding for this activity comes out of the public purse. The Taxpayers’ Alliance found that, in 2014, unions were provided with over 273,000 sq ft of office space by public sector organisations in the UK. The market value of such office space in Cardiff would be over £6.2 million, yet unions were charged just £307,000, meaning the taxpayer is actually subsidising union activity by millions of pounds. The UK Act required greater transparency on information relating to facility time, simply extending those requirements that already apply to the civil service. I believe that it is right that the Government monitor this to ensure it is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money, and that levels of facility time remain appropriate and necessary. Clearly, the intention is that efficiency savings will be made simply by virtue of the requirement to publish this information. The first relevant period starts on 1 April. Therefore, the first reports will be due by 31 July. It is concerning that the Welsh Labour Government do not think it would be prudent to wait to see the initial results of this element of the UK Act. Instead, here the Welsh Labour Government seem to be pushing ahead with little statistical evidence. The Cabinet Secretary is concerned that the 40 per cent threshold creates the potential for wildcat strikes—

Will you take an intervention?

I can’t.

[Continues.]—yet, we’ve been offered no firm evidence to support this assertion. Further, it is concerning to note that whilst those giving evidence in committee spoke of the apparent low cost of processing payroll deductions, not one could provide an actual figure for this. Prior to the UK Act, just 22 per cent of public sector organisations in the UK charge unions for this service despite another cost to the public purse. In local government alone in Wales, we know that over 30,570 employees pay subscriptions through payroll deductions. The combined cost of which cannot be insignificant. So, we welcome the UK Government’s actions to ensure that costs incurred by unions are covered by unions.

The UK Government legislation also recognises there are sectors in which industrial action has a wider impact on members of the public that is disproportionate and unfair. Allowing agency workers to cover striking workers will ensure that businesses and many of our vital services will be able to continue to operate to some extent. So, it is concerning to note that the Cabinet Secretary intends to include provision in this Bill to prohibit the use of agency workers as cover during industrial action involving devolved Welsh authorities.

Llywydd—Deputy—the Conservative-led UK Government is committed to transparent and clear Government legislation that does not cause undue administrative burden or create legal confusion for employers. We understand that regulations in relation to check-off and facility time will not include devolved Welsh public bodies within their scope until the Wales Act 2017 comes into force, and we know that the Wales Act will clarify that industrial relations are a reserved matter. The UK Government, I am confident, will act at the earliest possible opportunity following commencement of the Wales Act to ensure the protection of our public services. The introduction of this Bill is an insult to the people of Wales, who face far greater issues: a lack of GPs, poor transport, reduced classroom support for teachers, inaccessibility to life-preserving drugs and raised council tax.

Are you winding up please?

Yes.

The Welsh Conservatives fundamentally oppose the general principles of this Bill and we will be voting against this motion today. I ask other Members with any conscience to support that aim.

Thank you. Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Deputy Presiding Officer. I speak in this debate as somebody who is proud to have served working people in my previous role, working for a trade union, and is committed to continuing to do so in my role as Assembly Member. It also means that I come at this debate with a little bit more of an understanding perhaps than some of how the principles and practices of social partnership work within the public and private sector in Wales. We make a lot of this social partnership and doing things differently in Wales, and it’s not just for the sake of being different. I know about that clear red water we talked about many years ago, but it’s actually because it’s the right thing to do and it actually reaps rewards not just for workers and workplaces, but actually for our economy and for our society. To not bring in and repeal these elements will definitely have an adverse effect on the social partnership approach that we so value here in Wales. I think the Conservative spokesperson said it was in the Conservative manifesto. Well, actually, to repeal these elements was in the Welsh Labour manifesto that was voted on last year.

You didn’t get a majority.

We got more than you. [Laughter.]

I feel it’s necessary to stand up again in this debate to actually try and rebut some of the rhetoric and the misunderstanding about how trade unions work in practice. So, the first thing to touch on, and I’m sure other colleagues will, is the collection of subs through check-off. It is a pretty straightforward and accessible means of doing this and, actually, in the vast majority of cases, including my own local authority, the unions actually cover the cost of check-off and save the local authority money. For those employers where there is an agreement in place—mostly in local government—the arrangement actually generates income for the local authority, albeit a modest sum. So, it’s not necessarily to the financial detriment of the local authority. I couldn’t understand when my colleagues were trying to make an intervention—we hear a lot of opposition from the opposition about check-off for paying trade union subs, but we don’t hear the same fuss being made about the numerous other deductions being taken from employees’ salaries, when charges are levied like childcare vouchers, cycle-to-work schemes and even national insurance.

When it comes to facility time, I think that’s quite an easy target. We hear a lot of attacks on facility time, but trade union facility time provides staff with a way to voice their experiences, and puts a clear mechanism in place for resolving grievances and disputes, whether informally or through collective bargaining, before it escalates to a stage when actually it does then cost the employer money to step in and take control of the situation. Restrictions on facility time for local reps and the damage to social partnership will erode the work done by trade unions to improve equal opportunities practice, and remove the best protections employees currently have from discriminatory treatment.

Would you take an intervention?

Of course.

Would you agree with me, Hannah Blythyn, about the research by the University of Warwick and the comment made by Professor Kim Hoque who undertook that research, who said:

‘Overall, the evidence suggests that both full and part-time workplace union representatives help improve performance in the public sector and that managers widely recognise this to be the case.’

Absolutely, because, obviously, it provides a mechanism for these things to be resolved and to be talked through before they actually reach a stage when it actually places an extra burden on the management and on the organisation.

Just in closing, at lunchtime today it was my pleasure to step in and host an event to celebrate 10 years of the life-changing learning partnership between the Open University and the TUC in Wales. Before being elected for the first time last year, I spent the best part of a decade working in the trade union movement and I saw first-hand the difference that trade union learning makes to people’s lives, and the doors to development and workplace learning that this unlocks and the opportunities that it opens. In Wales, we continue to support initiatives such as the Wales Union Learning Fund, whilst in Westminster the Tories have taken an axe to this opportunity for working people’s chance to achieve. I think that highlights to me, contrary to what some people would like you to believe of the negative—that trade unions are this ogre, if you like—that, actually, trade unions have a positive role to play, and they bring benefits not just to the workplace but, actually, to our economy and to our society. I think this Bill rightly seeks to reverse elements of the Conservative legislation that relate to our devolved public services, and that would not only slice away at social partnership but also our very social fabric.

Plaid Cymru supports the principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and we also welcome the desire to introduce an amendment on the use of agency workers, although we do agree that it would, perhaps, have been better for it to have been included from the outset, as the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has stated.

This Bill, of course, will disapply aspects of the UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, and that Act was enacted in March of this year, undermining the rights of workers. Any attempt to safeguard those rights are to be welcomed, but ultimately, we in Wales need to have the full powers to defend and protect workers’ rights and to develop a fair way of collaborating between workers and the employers—a way that would reflect our values as a nation.

The Trade Union Act of 2016 is an unnecessary attack on workers’ rights. It will be far more difficult for workers to get pay rises, to stop job losses or to negotiate better working conditions in the workplace as a result of this Act. The Act makes it more difficult for unions to do their day-to-day work in dealing with problems in the workplace before they develop into disputes, and the Act actually limits protest, and that is a real problem for a crucial part of our democracy. It is difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that the Conservative Government is determined to weaken trade unions in order to attack workers’ rights, pay and working conditions.

Bargaining between the employer and the employee works, because both sides have power. That is why most negotiations end not in a strike, but in agreement or resolution, and such an approach helps union members and those who aren’t union members in the same way. That helps to maintain public services. Treating workers with dignity and respect leads to a workforce that is willing to put the public first, from the patients in our hospitals and those receiving care to those collecting our rubbish and dealing with our recycling. Treating the workforce with respect makes business sense. But the Trade Union Act 2016 has shifted the power, and it is now far too heavily biased in one direction.

This is the latest attempt by the Conservatives, in their long history of attacking workers’ rights—rights that are at even greater risk following the decision to leave the European Union. Over the 1980s and early 1990s, a number of pieces of legislation were passed, drawn up by the Conservative Government, attacking the trade unions and workers’ rights. These include the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. Now, Labour, between 1997 and 2010, had an opportunity to undo the work of the Conservatives, but that opportunity was not taken. In its manifesto for the general election in 1997, the Labour Party stated that key elements of trade union legislation of the 1980s would remain in place. So, the prohibition on picketing and most restrictions on ballots remain in place. It is true to say that an attempt was made, but a very weak attempt, to strengthen rights through the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the ensuing Act in 2004. But in terms of many of the important rights that were withdrawn from workers during the 1980s and early 1990s, when Labour had the opportunity to put them back in place, their efforts were weak, to say the least. There was no real attempt to roll back the damage done. There was no real attempt to safeguard workers from the ill-doings of the Conservatives.

The Welsh Government has to rush this Bill through now. Once the Wales Act is in place and enacted, then industrial relations will be specifically reserved to Westminster. The attempt of the Welsh Government to use the benefits of conferred powers will be scrapped by the UK Government, and that is the fundamental weakness of the Wales Act, and why we need another Wales Act as a matter of urgency. It’s political motives that are at work here, with the Conservatives in Westminster attempting to ensure a uniform and cruel policy across Wales, England and Scotland, ignoring the devolved competence of the Assembly as it currently stands, ignoring the fact that we are not uniform nations. That is, there is a power grab happening here.

The Wales Act is a mechanism to roll powers back from this National Assembly, reducing the scope of what we can do for the benefit of our people here in Wales. There is a very real risk that the Conservatives are planning to grab more powers back to the centre as a result of leaving the European Union—

Are you winding up, please?

Plaid Cymru will safeguard workers and public services in Wales, every step of the way. Thank you.

This Bill is about the kind of public services that we want to see in Wales. Do we want public services where collaboration is the mark of them, or do we want public services where that is ever harder? We, on these benches, want strong public services, effectively delivered, and fair employment. We believe in the social partnership model that we have heard so much of today, and I was struck by the number of employers responding positively to the inquiry by the Equalities and Local Government Committee advocating support of the Government’s position here, reversing the Tory legislation of last year.

Social partnership is not the absence of dispute. There are going to be plenty of disagreements, there are going to be differences of view, and, from time to time, there’ll be differences of priority. But it does offer a framework for managing disagreement effectively and with as little disruption as possible. But it isn’t just a way of managing disagreement. It’s also a way of managing change and delivery in the public services, generally in the public interest, and often that is about managing difficult change and adapting in partnership with other stakeholders.

But it’s incumbent on us also to look forward at some of the threats and pressures that public services will face, as a consequence of a political choice by Conservative Governments in Westminster to impose a regime of austerity. That, compounded by increasing demand, and the risk to the public sector workforce of the uncertainty around EU nationals are potentially a threat to the resilience of some public services, not just in Wales—across the UK. The answer to those profound challenges is more collaboration and not less. It’s not just about avoiding conflict; it’s also about a framework that encourages a creative dialogue about how we tackle some of those threats and pressures ahead. But the truth of the matter is that this legislation, the 2016 Conservative legislation, is a purely political move. Strike action in the UK has never been lower—it’s low in England; it’s even lower in Wales—and the political nature of the attack is clear when you look at some of the core provisions in the Act, making it harder for unions to organise in the workplace. And as we’ve heard, at a time when good employers are making it easier for employees to buy bicycles, join a gym, contribute to pensions, this Act actually makes it harder to do something as basic as pay your union subscription.

So, make no mistake about it. This Bill reverses a nakedly political attack by the Conservatives in Westminster—a Tory attack on working people’s right to organise, a Tory attack on collaborative public services, and a Tory attack on the very resilience of public services right across the UK. And I’ll be proud to support the Government’s Bill.

The Trade Union Bill that the Welsh Government has brought here to debate today is a piece of legislation that has been scrutinised at some length in the Equalities and Local Government Committee, of which I’m a member, as well as the constitutional committee, of which I’m not, so I can only talk about it from the side of the committee I am on.

We heard a lot of evidence, and a clear consensus did emerge on both the employers and the unions’ side in favour of this Bill. UKIP broadly supports this Bill as we believe it does further the cause of improving working conditions in Wales, which is a laudable aim. Of course, we should strive to improve working conditions for all workers, not just the ones in the public sector, who happen to be in trade unions. But there is no logical sense in deliberately worsening conditions for the public sector workers, and a worsening of conditions is what the Minister, Mark Drakeford, has told us will happen if the Conservative Government’s UK legislation is not repealed. Nearly all of the witness we heard in committee tended to concur with this view, including, notably, the employers themselves.

There was an issue over legal competence. Did the Assembly rightly have legal competence over employment practices in the Welsh public sector, or did competence rightly lie with Westminster? Well, the committee was assured by Mark Drakeford that there was a strong legal case that the competence lay here. So, we in UKIP have taken him in good faith, and we backed the Bill on that basis, although, ultimately, it may be the courts who decide who is right.

What wasn’t really mentioned in the committee stage and hasn’t really cropped up today was that the Conservatives’ UK Trade Union Act, passed last year, is all a bit of a red herring. The original intention behind the Act was to cut off some of the funding for the Labour Party from the unions. But because Theresa May wanted Labour support over Brexit, this part of the Bill was kept from the legislation eventually passed by Westminster. What we were left with was a series of quibbles over things like facility time, the check-off and the turn-out threshold for legal strike ballots. In our view, workers should have the legal right to strike if a ballot has been won, and should not be constrained by some arbitrarily set threshold. Facility time, probably, in general allows union reps to deal with worker management issues before they come to strikes—a point that Hannah Blythyn made when this subject was first debated, and she’s made effectively again today. Facility time, if it could be calculated, probably saves public money, and also, in this respect, aids the delivery of public services. What we don’t want to do now is waste time by endlessly trying to record, minute and calculate facility time. This would actually constitute a real waste of public money. The check-off is simply an automatic deduction from a worker’s salary—little difference, in essence, from any other deduction. Nobody from the employers’ side in the committee hearings expressed any desire to end or limit the check-off. So, in summary, we support the principle of workers’ rights, and we also support the effective delivery of public services. We think this Bill will aid both, so we support the general principles of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m proud to speak today in support of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill. I applaud the prompt way that the Cabinet Secretary has brought forward this legislation to protect the rights of workers in Wales. In stark contrast to the approach of the UK Government, it is the Welsh Government that has shown the strong and stable leadership that Wales needs. The UK Government’s approach has been draconian and divisive. The UK Government has not only tried to affect the way trade unions work, undermining their ability to represent their members; they’ve also made an attack on the devolution settlement itself, trying to unpick the powers devolved to Wales.

Prior to being elected in May of last year, I taught in a secondary school in Caerphilly. As such, I was employed in one of those important public services that the UK Government’s Bill was aimed at, despite control over education being a key part of the devolved settlement from the word go. What were the implications of the UK Government’s regressive anti trade union Bill for me and my colleagues? Firstly, section 3 would have placed a threshold on our ability to vote for strike action. For all workers, strike action is the last resort—the final chance to stand up for workers’ rights. As we saw in the case of junior doctors in England, the Conservatives are intent on eroding and corroding the rights of public sector workers to an extent even Thatcher could not dream of. But at the same time as the UK Government limits the right to strike, they make no attempt to push similarly undemocratic quotas on other types of election. As always with the Conservatives, it’s one rule for one, and one rule for another.

Secondly, sections 13 and 14 would have aimed to undermine the principles of facility time. Trade unions represent their members on a regular basis in disputes where employees need help and in meetings with management on a range of issues. The ability of trade union stewards to do this and to keep their members informed would have been curtailed. Workers would be less well represented; union powers reduced.

Thirdly, section 15 would have equally threatened the viability of unions. The reduction in payment of at-source subs is a blow clearly aimed at the ability of unions to function. The purpose of the UK Government in this is clear: trade union membership could be limited. Trade union time and resources would be wasted in chasing after the payment of subscriptions.

All four sections would have threatened not just the ability and the viability of my union to represent me and my former career, they would have threatened the ability of public sector unions to represent public sector workers across Wales. As around three out of 10 Welsh workers are employed in the public sector, the impact of the UK Government’s legislation was considerable. Furthermore the UK Government’s vindictive approach would have been based on trampling over the devolution settlement and the powers of this body. This is not acceptable and does not augur well ahead of the return of powers from the European Union.

I followed with great interest the Stage 1 inquiry by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee into the Welsh Government’s proposed Bill, and would like to pay tribute to the Chair and committee members for this useful piece of evidence. What struck me was the overwhelming support for the Bill’s general principles. This came not just from those we would expect to back the Bill, like the trade unions, it also came from evidence supplied on behalf of professional associations and, crucially, public sector employers. All these voices were joined in a chorus of approval for the Bill. A chorus that proclaimed that the stubborn dogmatism of the UK Government was intent on overturning the principles of social partnership on which successive Welsh Governments have based their approach to industrial relations. What is more, the committee heard that the UK Government plans would not only wreck the doctrine, but also should partners have an equal stake in the delivery of services, their plans would also impact on the delivery of those public services themselves. As the Society of Radiographers said, the impact of the UK Government’s changes would make it

‘more difficult for our members to put patients first’

and would ‘adversely affect patient care’.

I look forward to supporting the Welsh Government’s Bill, and, in doing so, supporting public sector workers and public services today.

Thank you very much, and I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. As you’ve heard, there is strong support for the Bill in the Assembly this afternoon. I thank John Griffiths for what I thought was a succinct summary of the evidence that his committee took. In each aspect of the Bill, there was overwhelming support, as he said, from stakeholders for a simple and effective Bill. Members have heard from Gareth Bennett, who sat through the evidence and who was convinced enough by it to sign up to that simple, clear conclusion of the committee that the Bill should be supported.

Wrth gwrs, rydw i’n cydnabod cefnogaeth Plaid Cymru, fel roedd Sian Gwenllian yn ei ddweud, i’n helpu ni i ddiogelu hawliau gweithwyr yma yng Nghymru ac i roi tegwch yn y gweithlu i bobl sy’n gweithio yn ein gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yma yng Nghymru.

Dirprwy Lywydd, you heard from other Members here explaining that the purpose of this Bill is to support the success we have had in Wales in developing a social partnership approach. Jeremy Miles was absolutely right when he said that the social partnership approach is not about the absence of dispute; it is about the much, much harder work of facing up to challenges, to get round the table together, to think through, to talk through, to argue through and, in the end, to reach an agreement on a way forward where the problem itself is difficult and where the solution is not easy to find, but social partnership demands that you do that hard work, rather than, as in the way that we’ve heard from the Conservatives here this afternoon—they would rather retreat behind the barricades of a socially divisive confrontation of an adversarial approach to the conduct of industrial relations.

What this Bill does, Dirprwy Lywydd, quite certainly, is that it exposes the Conservative Party here in Wales. It exposes them as the reactionary force they are when it comes to social partnership. There is a Pavlovian response—there is a Pavlovian response from the Welsh Conservative Party. You mention the words ‘trade unions’, and they immediately begin to salivate over battles long ago. Time after time, in this Chamber, I’ve had to listen to Conservative Party Members talk about the heroic efforts of public service workers here in Wales, while they seek to condemn the services that those people provide, yet when those people turn out to be trade unionists, they go from being heroes of public service to people against whom the public at large have to be guarded against the dangers that they pose. Well, that is an argument that will not pass muster on the floor of this Assembly.

The second reason why the Bill exposes the Conservative Party, and I thought this was an authentically shocking part of the one contribution we heard from the Conservative Party, is that it exposes them on the devolution issue as well. This is a Bill that is being taken through the democratically elected forum of Wales. It is a Bill that seeks to do things in our public services in the way in which we in Wales would choose to organise our affairs, and yet the Conservative Party is willing to wave the stick of a Westminster Government prepared to reverse the democratic will of this National Assembly. I think there will be a democratic outrage, should it take place, and I’m very disappointed and saddened to hear it being suggested on the floor of the National Assembly this afternoon. Instead, this small, but important Bill will do things in the way that we want to do them here in Wales—a way that we know is effective; a way that we know will save money, will stop strikes, will protect the public and will improve our public services because it will use the enormous reservoir of goodwill and effective action that trade unionists in all parts of our public services bring to the work that they do, making the contribution they make: a contribution recognised by employers, recognised by social partners, recognised by other parties here in the Chamber this afternoon, and I hope will be reflected in the vote that we will hold on it.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, thank you. I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Motion to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill. Can I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion?

Formally, Chair.

Thank you very much. There are no speakers in this debate, and as we have deferred voting on the general principles of the Bill, I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

We have agreed that voting time will take place before Stage 3, before we enter the Stage 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Bill, and therefore unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will now proceed to voting time. Ring the bell. Okay. Ring the bell please.

Right, we’ll move to vote on the general principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mark Drakeford. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 36, one abstention, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We now move to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 37, one abstention, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Before we move to the Stage 3 debate on the public health Bill, the session will suspend for 10 minutes. The bell will be rung after five minutes, and can I urge you all to return to the Chamber as soon as possible in order to proceed with expedience? Thank you.

I call the National Assembly to order. The next item on our agenda is the Stage 3 debate on the Public Health (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relates to tackling obesity. Amendment 3 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd, and it’s a huge pleasure to move these amendments formally today to commence our proceedings on the Stage 3 debate on the Public Health (Wales) Bill. We have been here before, of course. But, as this Bill reached this stage on the last occasion, and it was resubmitted in this Assembly, there was no reference at all to the major public health problem that we as a nation are facing. Now, there is an opportunity, through our amendments to change that and to put tackling obesity on the face of this Bill, and to ensure that a strategy is published and implemented to tackle this crisis, because it is a crisis.

I’m grateful for the broad-ranging support that has been given to these amendments today. I’m grateful to Cancer Research UK, for example, who, I know, have been encouraging Assembly Members to support this amendment. The link between obesity and cancer is clear, according to them, but there are too many people that don’t yet realise that. With their figures showing that 59 per cent of Welsh adults were overweight in 2015, and over 25 per cent of children were either overweight or obese, then Cancer Research UK is convinced that having a national strategy will be a means to start to tackle this situation.

Rwy’n falch iawn o fod yn cyflwyno'r gwelliannau heddiw, yn y cyd-destun o fod wedi cael trafodaethau cadarnhaol gyda'r Llywodraeth ynglŷn â hyn, y problemau iechyd cyhoeddus mwyaf difrifol, o bosibl, sy'n ein hwynebu ni yng Nghymru. Ac rwy’n ddiolchgar i'r Gweinidog am gytuno â mi mai dyma'r lle, ar wyneb y Bil hwn, i roi mesurau ar waith i geisio mynd i'r afael â'r argyfwng cenedlaethol hwn.

Mae hwn yn fater yr wyf yn teimlo'n gryf iawn amdano yn bersonol. Ond mae un dyn yn fy etholaeth sydd wedi bod yn ddylanwadol iawn o ran cryfhau fy mhenderfyniad i sicrhau bod y Cynulliad, a Llywodraeth Cymru, yn cymryd camau gweithredu yn y maes hwn. Ray Williams enillodd y fedal aur am godi pwysau yn y dosbarth pwysau plu dros Gymru yng Ngemau’r Gymanwlad 1986, ond mae'n dal i fod yn bencampwr o hyd—pencampwr o ran sicrhau bod ei dref, Caergybi, ac Ynys Môn, a’n cenedl, yn iachach ac yn fwy heini. Siaradais â Ray y bore yma ac mae'n falch ein bod bellach mewn sefyllfa lle gallwn, heddiw, gobeithio, ennill cefnogaeth y Cynulliad ar gyfer y gwelliant hanfodol hwn lle mae rhywbeth sydd, yn ei farn ef, wedi difetha lles ein cenedl ers degawdau bellach am fod yn ganolbwynt i strategaeth glir y Llywodraeth. Os cawn ni’r strategaeth yn gywir, mae ef yn credu y gallwn nid yn unig fod yn genedl iachach a mwy heini, ond yn un hapusach hefyd—a bydd yn arbed arian, mae’n dweud. Ac mae'n iawn, wrth gwrs. Mae Cancer Research UK yn amcangyfrif bod gordewdra yn costio £73 miliwn y flwyddyn i’r GIG. Pan eich bod yn ychwanegu afiechydon fel diabetes math 2 at hynny, a achosir yn bennaf gan ordewdra, yna mae'r ffigwr yn codi i gannoedd o filiynau o bunnoedd bob blwyddyn.

Nawr, gyda'r gwelliannau, gobeithio, wedi’u pasio a'r Bil wedi’i ddeddfu, yna bydd y gwaith yn dechrau, wrth gwrs, o wneud yn siŵr bod gennym strategaeth gref, â phwyslais, uchelgeisiol, ac y gellir ei chyflawni. Bydd Ray—rwy'n gwybod—a llawer tebyg iddo ond yn rhy falch o gyfrannu at y gwaith o lunio’r strategaeth honno. Mae er budd pob un ohonom ni yn y fan yma, pob un ohonom ni yng Nghymru, ond yn gyntaf gofynnaf i chi gefnogi ein gwelliannau heddiw.

The Welsh Conservatives intend to support all the amendments in this section as we’ve been most concerned that the proposed public health Bill had done so little to tackle the issue of obesity. In debate after questions after statement, concerns are raised from all parties over the prevalence of obesity in Wales and the corresponding pressures that illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, which are exacerbated by or caused by obesity, will have on the individual and the NHS. The economic and human cost of obesity cannot be understated. Being overweight or obese can lead to both chronic and severe medical conditions. Over the next 20 years, rising levels of obesity could lead to an additional 230,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, an additional 80,000 cases of coronary heart disease, and over 32,000 cases of cancer.

Over £1 million a week is spent by the Welsh NHS on treating obesity, and it is predicted that by 2050 as many as 60 per cent of men and 50 per cent of women could be obese. With rates of being overweight and obesity continuing to rise, by 2050 this will cost the NHS in Wales £465 million per year, with a cost to society and to the general economy of some £2.4 billion. There are no indications that obesity levels are currently declining, therefore we believe that it is vital that the Welsh Government develop a cross-portfolio solution to tackle this growing challenge.

Although this lead amendment, for which we are most grateful to Plaid Cymru, is a step in the right direction, there are concerns that there’s not the evidence base to underpin a meaningful and effective strategy in Wales. Therefore, the Welsh Conservatives believe it is critical that the Minister should consult and engage widely across the public sector in Wales to ensure that all organisations are working collaboratively together to deliver these objectives. This way, duplication can be reduced, localised challenges can be targeted, and we can begin to develop a more detailed understanding of the complexities surrounding obesity levels and what can be done to reduce them.

I’m very pleased to rise to support these amendments on the need to tackle obesity. As we’ve already heard, this has seen quite a journey in our discussions with regard to the public health Bill, and we’re very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to this fundamental change, having heard all of the evidence that has come before the health committee. As we’ve heard, 59 per cent of adults are overweight in this nation—one in four is obese. And yes, obesity is important as an issue. It’s that link with heart disease and diabetes as well, but, as we heard from Rhun also, there’s that link with cancer. You’re not aware sometimes that there is more of a chance of suffering from cancer if you are obese or overweight. That’s a fact now, and there have been plenty of medical trials that have shown that.

So, obesity is the most timely and pressing challenge facing us at the moment. So, it’s appropriate that our first public health Bill now gets to grips with this significant challenge. Yes, education has a part to play—healthy eating and so on. Keeping fit also has a part to play, as I’ve mentioned before—10,000 steps every day. But, of course, legislating as well also has a part to play, such as legislating to ensure nutritional standards in our food, in our hospitals and in our care homes; and getting to grips with the sugar tax. We do have powers and rights at present, but perhaps we won’t in the future under the Wales Act 2017. It would be good to have the minimum price of 50p on every alcohol unit. We have those powers now, but not perhaps in the future under the Wales Act 2017. So, there are several challenges in this place. It would also be good to restrict the advertising of junk food. So, that combination: education is vitally important, but as we’ve also seen with smoking—. We as doctors and nurses had been educating the public for decades about how bad smoking was for you, but what has made that genuine step in decreasing smoking levels is legislating on the subject, and the ban on smoking in public places. So, education and legislation come together to improve public health standards, and that’s why I’m pleased to see this amendment to the public health Bill this afternoon, so please do support the amendment. Thank you.

UKIP will be supporting the amendments in this group. We found it hard to reconcile the fact that the public health Bill did nothing to address the biggest public health challenge facing our nation—obesity. As I highlighted during last week’s debate on diabetes, it is a matter of national shame that nearly two-thirds of Welsh adults and a third of Welsh children are overweight or obese. We must make it clear that tackling the obesity crisis is a public health priority for the Welsh Government, and requiring them to produce a clear strategy with clear actions is the best way to achieve this. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tackling obesity is a major challenge to all Governments in the developed world. It requires joint action from a wide range of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, as well as from individuals themselves. I am grateful to Rhun ap Iorwerth for bringing forward proposals for a national obesity strategy at Stage 2 of the Bill’s consideration, and for the revised amendments being considered today. When the original amendments were tabled at Stage 2, I indicated that I could see the value in bringing a range of measures together through a coherent national obesity strategy. However, due to some concerns about the detail of the proposals, I was unable to support the amendments in their original form. I therefore thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for agreeing to work with the Government to consider the issue further, and for the revised amendments before the Assembly today. I am confident that the amendments now achieve both our objectives to the benefit of the people of Wales. I am pleased to now be able to support all of the amendments in this group. I am grateful to the Member for taking on board the points I made, and for working collaboratively to further refine the details of the proposals. I am particularly pleased that the revised amendments allow for broad stakeholder engagement and for a focus on prevention. I am confident these amendments will strengthen the Bill by placing the work of the Welsh Government to tackle this major public health challenge on a statutory footing. I am confident the amendments will deliver positive change for the people of Wales, and therefore ask Members to support them.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I appreciate that the consensus that has been achieved during the passage of this Bill through the committee stages has been reflected here again in the Chamber. Each and every one of us at the beginning of this journey was aware that we were talking about a problem and a crisis here, and we all wanted to find a way of including it on the face of the Bill. What we have delivered through negotiation and through seeking a joint way forward between ourselves and Government is to ensure that we have reached that objective. I repeat that the challenge now—or the reality now—is that this is just the beginning of the journey. In having agreement to working towards a strategy, then we have to turn that principle into a strategy that will make a real difference. I look forward to seeing these amendments formally approved now, and I look forward to seeing the development of that strategy, which could be the start of the journey to tackling this crisis, which is so damaging for us as a nation.

If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendments 4, 2 and 1 will fall. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, so amendment 3 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 4, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next group of amendments relates to smoke-free premises. Amendment 6 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Bill, as it currently stands, would, for the very first time, make three outdoor areas smoke free. These are: school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds. I've been pleased to see the broad support for this significant step that has been clear throughout the scrutiny process. During Stage 1 consideration of the Bill, a number of suggestions were made for additional outdoor areas that should be smoke free. I've been clear throughout that there are inherent complexities in such provisions, but I indicated that I would give active consideration to a fourth setting, namely early-years settings, directly in response to the evidence of stakeholders and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's deliberations. As a result of that consideration, I'm pleased to have brought forward the amendments in this group that would add the outdoor areas of registered care settings for children to the list of smoke-free premises. This is a natural next step that further protects children from the harmful effects of smoking and from seeing it as a normal, everyday activity.

Amendment 8 is the primary amendment in this group. It gives details of the settings to be covered, which are registered day care settings for children and child minders providing care in their own domestic premises. The outdoor areas will only be smoke free if the premises are being used for the care of children. In the case of child minders, the outdoor areas of their homes will only be smoke free if one or more children are being cared for in the outdoor area. This ensures an appropriate balance is struck between the protection of children and the rights of any smokers living in the child minder’s home.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to those who control or are involved in the management of the day care premises, or are registered to act as a child minder. They will be required to take reasonable steps to stop people from smoking in the smoke-free premises, and the amendments also make it an offence not to do so.

Amendment 5 reflects the additional smoke-free requirements in the long title of the Bill, and amendment 9 adds the new section to be introduced by amendment 8 to a list of premises designated as smoke free by the Bill.

The remaining amendments in this group clarify that premises used wholly or mainly as dwellings cannot be made smoke free using the power under section 10 of the Bill. They also provide the conditions that must be met before premises used partly as dwellings may be made smoke free in the future, using the regulation-making power in section 10.

I ask Members to support all of the amendments in this group, which will provide important additional protections for children in Wales.

Whilst the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the amendments in this section, we are concerned that this legislation is likely to have the largest impact on the working practices of small businesses. In many aspects, the success of this Bill is dependent on the ability of small firms to comply with the changes in legislation, so it is vital that businesses are able to fully understand the implications of the Bill.

At Stage 2, we tabled amendments to the Bill that sought to provide greater clarity on the implementation of smoke-free premises, particularly for those who are self-employed or working from home, calling for the Minister to issue targeted and thorough guidance to small businesses that could demonstrate what is expected of them in regard to changes in the law. At that stage, the Minister gave her reassurances that any guidance issued with regard to smoke-free premises would, and I quote,

‘set out people’s responsibilities in lay terms, and will therefore help persons affected by the legislation to understand what their new responsibilities are.’

The Minister went on to give further assurances that the guidance issued on the smoking ban in public places in 2007 would be updated and reissued. So, on these grounds we agreed not to re-table the amendments at Stage 3.

In regard to amendment 6, assurance must be given by the Minister that guidance will be issued to provide clarity as to what is expected of individuals in regard to this duty, as this is not yet set out in the explanatory memorandum. It is vital that some example scenarios are presented to determine what is expected of childminders to promote compliance with the law.

In this section, the initial wording of this Bill created a power for Welsh Ministers to implement additional smoke-free premises on the grounds that—and I quote—if they’re

‘satisfied that doing so is likely to contribute towards the promotion of the health of the people of Wales.’

That could potentially result in a blanket ban across the whole of Wales. Now, the Welsh Conservatives raised this issue extensively, because although we accept that it was highly unlikely that a blanket ban would be implemented, we believe that it is critical that we demonstrate that politicians in the National Assembly do create robust legislation, and that this blanket power was restricted. Despite that, at committee level, the Minister gave an assurance that there was no intent to enact a blanket ban and struck out our amendment. Therefore it is marginally ironic, but very welcome, to see that at Stage 3 the Minister has tabled further amendments to section 10 of the Bill that seek to restrict this clause, despite her assertions that it was not necessary. This restriction is welcome, and therefore we will support amendment 10. However, it is regrettable that the Minister urged others to reject a similar amendment at Stage 2.

UKIP supports extending smoke-free legislation to all settings where children could be exposed to second-hand smoke and will therefore be supporting the Minister’s amendments in this group. Diolch.

I call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

I thank Members for their support for these measures within the Bill. I would just take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances that I did give at Stage 2 regarding appropriate guidance being issued.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 7, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, does any Member object? Amendment 7 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 8, Minister.

Formally.

If amendment 8 is not agreed to, amendment 5 falls. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 8 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 9, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 9 is agreed.

Amendment 10, Minister.

Yes, move.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 10 is agreed.

Amendment 11, Minister.

I formally move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 11 is agreed.

Amendment 12, Minister.

Formally move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 12 is agreed.

Amendment 13, Minister.

Yes, move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 13 is agreed.

Amendment 14, Minister.

Move.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 14 is agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to smoking and enforcement. Amendment 15 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on the Minister to move and to speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. The amendments in this group are all technical in nature and make minor changes to aid understanding of the provisions. They reflect changes made at Stage 2 to name the enforcement authorities for the smoke-free-premises provisions on the face of the Bill, rather than designating them in regulations as initially planned. None of the amendments make a substantive change to the provisions and I urge Members to support these technical amendments.

There are no speakers on these amendments. Therefore, I take it that the Minister doesn’t want to reply to the debate. Therefore, the question that follows from that is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 15 is agreed.

Amendment 16, Minister.

Formally.