National Assembly for Wales

Bore da. I'd like to welcome all Members to today's meeting of the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We've had apologies from Sioned Williams and Altaf Hussain, and I'd like to welcome Peredur Owen Griffiths and Joel James, who will be substituting for them throughout today's meeting. Our meeting is bilingual and simultaneous translation from Welsh to English is available. Are there any declarations of interest that anybody needs to make? I don't see any.

So we'll move straight on to the sole item of business for today, which is Stage 2 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill. We will adhere to the marshalled list and take each group of amendments relating to that subject matter. I'll obviously call the mover of the lead amendment first and then any other person who wishes to speak, either initially as the mover of another amendment in that group, or any other Member who wishes to speak on the subject in question. 

So, the first group of amendments relates to the social partnership council chairing, meetings and procedure, and the lead amendment is amendment 12. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in that group. 

Thank you, Chair, for this important opportunity to contribute to the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill. I wish to first of all speak to my own amendments. For the social partnership council to function in a manner that is to be expected, that is, one that shows impartiality and fairness in proceedings, I believe that an independent chair is necessary. For this reason, my amendments in this group will serve to replace the First Minister as chair of the social partnership council with an independent chair that is to be selected by the Senedd.

Chair, I also believe that it is important that the meetings of the social partnership council are effective and time efficient. For these reasons, my amendments in this group would also reduce the number of times that the SPC meets, guarantee that the SPC can continue to meet if the chair is not present, and ensure that any expenses claimed as part of participation in the council are reasonable. Furthermore, to enhance the quality of these meetings, amendment 43 will ensure that all meetings will be properly prepared for the meeting by having copies of the agenda for a meeting of the SPC to be published electronically at least 14 days before that meeting, or, if the meeting is convened at a shorter notice, then as soon as is reasonably practicable. As for amendment 1, I'm happy to support this amendment, as I believe it is right that any revisions must be consulted on with the SPC.

Ken. Ken Skates. 

Thank you, Chair. The SPC is a Welsh Government body. I know of no other Executive bodies that have chairs appointed by the Senedd, so it's entirely appropriate that the First Minister, or for that matter, any other Minister or Deputy Minister within the Government should chair the council. So, I, I'm afraid, don't agree with Joel's proposal. 

Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this? Jane. 

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this. I would agree with the point made by my colleague Ken Skates. It feels entirely appropriate that this important council is chaired by somebody with the stature and seniority as that of the First Minister. So, I don't support this amendment. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I'd now like to call on the Member in charge to speak to amendment 1, and any other of the amendments in front of us on this subject. 

Thank you, Chair. I'll speak to the Government's amendment 1 first. This amendment responds to the committee's Stage 1 recommendation No. 4, which proposed that a duty be placed on Welsh Ministers to consult with social partnership council members before making revisions to the council's procedures. As I indicated in my letter to the committee following the Stage 1 debate, the Government accepted recommendation 4, and as such has tabled this amendment to add a requirement on Welsh Ministers to consult with SPC members before making any revisions to the council's procedures. I therefore ask that the committee accepts this amendment. 

Turning to the remaining amendments in this group, tabled by Joel James, Members will know that the function of the social partnership council, as set out in the Bill, is to provide information and advice to the Welsh Ministers on relevant matters. It's entirely appropriate that the First Minister, or another Welsh Minister or Deputy Minister, should chair the council. I do therefore not agree with Joel James's proposal that the Senedd be given the power to appoint the chair of the SPC. The council is intended to be a Welsh Government body and not a committee of the Senedd. 

Amendment 40 would require the SPC to meet four times per year. My view is that this is unnecessarily prescriptive. Currently, the Bill states that the SPC must meet at least three times in each 12-month period. This is a minimum requirement. The SPC may choose to meet more than three times a year if it so wishes, but this would be a matter best decided by the SPC itself when it becomes operational. Amendment 43 would require SPC agendas to be published within a specified period ahead of each meeting. Again, I think this would be unnecessarily restrictive and would hinder the SPC's ability to respond in a flexible and agile way to changing circumstances. 

Finally, in relation to amendment 48, which relates to members' expenses, all those appointed to public office are bound by the seven principles of public life and have a duty to ensure the safeguarding of public funds. I would expect all members of the SPC or its constituent sub-groups to fully comply with the rules set by the Welsh Government regarding expenses, and that all claims for expenses are scrutinised before payment is made. So, on that basis, while I appreciate the spirit in which that amendment has been tabled, the Government will not be supporting amendment 48, solely on the basis that it isn't necessary.

So, in conclusion then, I ask Members to resist amendments 12, 15, 18, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, and support amendment 1. Diolch.  

Thank you, Minister. I call on Joel James to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Chair, and I'm disappointed that the Minister and others are not supporting my amendments in this group. I firmly believe that guaranteeing impartiality, effectiveness and efficiency for these meetings is in the best interests of all involved. Moreover, I do not see any specific need for the First Minister to chair these meetings, because they will still be in attendance, and it helps prevent representatives from simply stating what they think the First Minister wants to hear, which, given the status of the office, as outlined by my colleague Jane Dodds, could easily happen. Thank you. 

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will now proceed to a vote on amendment 12. Will all those in favour please raise your hand? And all those against. So, one Member in favour, five against. So, that amendment falls. 

Joel, do you wish to move to amendment 15? Do you wish to put amendment 15? 

Amendment 13? 

Okay, I beg your pardon. So, we—.

We move to group 2 now. We'll dispose of these amendments afterwards.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Fine. So, when do we come back to—?

In the marshalled order. 

Okay. So, the second group of amendments relates to the social partnership council and its political representatives, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 13. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Turning to my amendments, which comprise the entirety of this group, amendments 13, 17, 19, 21, 26 and 30 serve to increase the political representation on the social partnership council, therefore enabling a wider range of voices to be heard. It also helps improve scrutiny of the Welsh Government, because other political parties would have access to the advice that the Welsh Government is receiving. As to my remaining amendments, 33, 37 and 51, they seek to ensure that those who have been elected to represent the views of the Welsh people are able to represent their constituents in the social partnership council. Thank you.

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendments in group 2? Sarah.

Thank you, Chair. The social partnership council is not intended to be a political forum; it is meant to be a mechanism for bringing together Welsh Government and social partners in support of the duties set out in the Bill, and, more widely, our well-being goals. So, I do not support this amendment.

Thank you. Minister, do you wish to—? I beg your pardon. Sorry, I hadn't—. Ken Skates.

Thanks, Chair. Further to the comments made by Sarah Murphy, which I agree with, I'd also add that scrutiny of Welsh Government bodies takes place in the Senedd itself, through committee work and Siambr work, not in the bodies themselves, so I'd object to this group as well.

Very good. I call on the Member in charge to respond to the debate.

Diolch. The Government will not be accepting these amendments. Our vision for the SPC is as a formal channel through which employers and trade unions—specifically employer and worker representatives—are able to engage with Welsh Ministers, to work with us to reach consensus on issues of mutual interest and to provide us with advice to better inform policy development and support implementation. It's not intended to be a party-political forum, nor, as I mentioned in my previous remarks, some sort of glorified Senedd committee. The Government will therefore not be supporting these amendments.

Joel James, do you wish to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Chair. It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that the Minister and others haven't supported these amendments, but, unless you have voices that represent the diversity of opinion in Wales, it is not really a social partnership. And I'm concerned that the Deputy Minister is going to create an echo chamber for the Welsh Government to hear those opinions that it agrees with. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. So, all those in favour of amendment 13. And all those against. So, that's one in favour, five against, so amendment 13 falls.

We now move to group 3, which relates to the social partnership council and the employer representatives. The lead amendment is from Joel James—amendment 14.

Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to my amendments in this group concerning employer representatives. Firstly, amendments 14 and 20 will increase the number of representatives on the social partnership council, to include representatives of employers from small, medium and large businesses. For the SPC to be properly informed, it must draw on contributions from a wide range of views and experiences. By opening the door to representatives from small, medium and large businesses, we will be ensuring advice and a representative cohort of the private sector will be able to have their say. Small, medium and large businesses each have a different need and organise their voices differently to Government and trade unions. Having one body represent all these businesses is short-sighted, and we should strengthen the ability of businesses to convey their needs, therefore I propose having this extra representation.

As to amendments 23 and 24, these will further reinforce the contributions I previously described, by ensuring that employers from different sectors are represented in the SPC. Finally, amendments 49, 50 and 52 provide clear definitions of 'large businesses' et cetera, in order to facilitate my previous amendments.

Thank you. Does any other Member wish to speak on this group of amendments? The Minister in charge to respond.

Thank you, Chair. The Government will not be supporting amendment 14. The SPC is intended to be tripartite, with equal representation from social partners across the public, private and third sectors. Amendment 14 would increase the number of employer representatives on the council, but not worker representatives. This would create an imbalance, and as such is not one we can support.

In relation to amendment 23, I am unconvinced that there is a need to give priority status to local health boards and local authorities. The Bill relies on a definition of 'public bodies' set out in section 6 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, all of whom are subject to the social partnership duties, and includes local authorities and local health boards. Making special provision for local health boards and local authorities is therefore unnecessary. 

As far as amendment 24 is concerned, I believe that ensuring businesses of all sizes are represented in the council is a matter that employer representatives will, without any legal requirement from us, give careful consideration to when making the nominations. And of course we will work with the sector to ensure that this is the case in practice.

I call on Joel James to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. Again, it's unfortunate that these amendments are not being supported. I believe that depriving the SPC of the widest possible range of views will only serve to harm its performance in the long run. Thank you.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Amendment 14, all those in favour. And all those against. One Member in favour, five against, so amendment 14 falls.

Amendment 15, Joel James. Do you wish to move this amendment?

So, all those in favour of amendment 15. And all those against. That's one in favour, five against. Amendment 15 falls.

Joel James, amendment 16—do you wish to move that?

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 16. All those against amendment 16. That's one Member in favour, five against. Amendment 16 falls.

Joel James, amendment 17.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour. And all those against. So, one in favour, five against. Amendment 17 falls.

Amendment 18, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does anybody object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 18. And all those against. So, one in favour, five against. Amendment 18 falls.

Amendment 19, Joel James.

Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 19. And all those against. One in favour, five against. Amendment 19 falls.

Amendment 20, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 20. And all those against amendment 20. That's one in favour, five against. Amendment 20 falls.

Amendment 21.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 21. And all those against. So, one in favour, five against. Amendment 21 falls.

Amendment 22, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 22. All those against. So, that's one in favour and five against. 

Amendment 23, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 23. All those against. One Member in favour, five against, so amendment 23 falls. 

Amendment 24. Do you wish to move it?

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 24. And all those against. One in favour, five against. Amendment 24 falls.

Amendment 25.

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 25. And all those against. Thank you. So, one in favour, five against. Amendment 25 falls.   

Amendment 26.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 26. And all those against. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 26 falls. 

Amendment 27.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 27. All those against. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 27 falls. 

Amendment 28, Joel James. 

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 28. All those against. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 28 falls. 

Amendment 29.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 29. All those against amendment 29. One in favour, five against. Amendment 29 falls.  

Amendment 30, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 30. All those against amendment 30. One in favour, five against. Amendment 30 falls.

We now move on to group 4, relating to the social partnership council and the nomination process by TUC Cymru Wales. The lead amendment in this group is from Peredur Owen Griffiths. 

Thanks to everybody who has been involved in this drafting process and amendment process.

This amendment, as with all our amendments, is submitted in good faith and with a view to making this legislation as robust and beneficial to our country as possible. Our amendment is not a slight on the TUC whatsoever. We enjoy a good relationship with them and have met with them on a number of occasions to discuss this legislation as well as other matters. It is a fact, however, that many trade unions, such as the RCN and the BMA, are not affiliated with the TUC. Placing a duty on the TUC to consider non-affiliated trade unions when forming a social partnership council will ensure that those voices are heard within this key body and are drawn from as wide as possible a cross-section of society.

Plurality is the key to the success and effectiveness of the SPC, and this amendment is laid with the intention of delivering this. It aims to strengthen the Bill to make sure that all workers and employees have their rights recognised and protected in the Bill to ensure that their voice is heard in decision making. The inclusion of this in the Bill will reduce bias on the social partnership council, ensuring it works most effectively and in a collaborative manner. So, I move my amendment.

Thank you. Jane Dodds, you proposed amendment 94, which is exactly the same wording. So, amendment 94 falls automatically, but you may wish to speak to this amendment. 

Thank you, Chair. I support the comments made by my colleague Peredur Owen Griffiths. It is crucial that the Welsh Government hear from a wide variety of relevant union voices when making decisions. This makes sure that they receive all appropriate expertise and ensure that there is confidence in the decisions that are made. The Bill at present does not allow this to occur and could potentially exclude recognised trade unions from collaborating in social partnership. This undermines the very idea of social partnership working. Nominations to the social partnership council should be fair, open and transparent for all recognised trade unions with collective bargaining rights in Wales, whether affiliated to the TUC or not. Whilst each trade union could choose to affiliate with or unaffiliate from the TUC at any point, their involvement in the social partnership council and its nomination process should not be a factor for consideration. I therefore support the movement of this amendment. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. Does any other Member wish to speak before I call the Minister? The Minister in charge.

Thank you, Chair. As I confirmed in my letter to committee following our Stage 1 debate and from previous discussions with members of the committee, I do very much understand and appreciate the concerns that some Members have in regard to this issue and the spirit in which these amendments have been tabled. However, a duty of the type proposed will not be possible, primarily because Wales TUC is a private body. Instead, I have agreed with Wales TUC Cymru that the nominations will include representation from non-affiliated unions. They very much appreciate the importance of this matter, and have given a written commitment to ensure that nominations are wide ranging and include non-affiliated trade unions. I'm happy to share that written commitment with the committee and place it formally on the record, if that would be helpful.

Peredur, would you like to respond to the debate?

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Chair. Thank you for those comments. It is important that there's transparency within the SPC. I welcome that letter from the TUC, and certainly want to see that, as this Bill moves forward, we see some strengthening in that area. But I welcome what you've said. I'll still be moving my amendment, but hopefully we can have further discussions at Stage 3 to see how this can be strengthened.

Very good. So, the question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 72. And all those against. I therefore use my casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 72 is not agreed.

Jane Dodds, do you wish to move amendment 94, which is slightly different to amendment 72?

I don't, Chair, no, thank you.

Thank you. We now move on to amendment 31. Joel James, do you wish to move amendment 31?

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 31. All those against. One in favour, five against. Amendment 31 falls.

Amendment 32. 

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All of those in favour of amendment 32. One. All those against amendment 32. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 32 falls.

Jane Dodds, amendment 95—do you wish to move to a vote?

No, I don't, Chair, thank you.

Okay. Are Members content that amendment 95 falls?

Moving on to amendment 33.

The question is that amendment 33 be put. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 33. All those against amendment 33. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 33 falls.

Joel James, amendment 34.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 34. And all those against. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 34 falls.

Amendment 35, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 35. All those against amendment 35. One in favour, five against. Amendment 35 falls.
 
 

We now move on to group 5: the social partnership council and the length of appointments, and the lead amendment is amendment 36. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. Obviously, I wish to speak to my amendments in this group concerning the duration of appointments. Amendment 36 will ensure that members of the social partnership council are frequently attending the meetings and fulfilling their duties, whilst amendment 39 makes sure that a member of the SPC cannot be dismissed without good cause. Chair, the reasons for these amendments are straightforward. It is vital to the integrity of the SPC that its members perform all that is expected of them in order to maximise its effectiveness. It is also for these reasons that it is important to put safeguards in place to prevent unnecessary dismissal of members of the SPC, as being too frivolous with such an action could be incredibly detrimental to proceedings.

As to Peredur Owen Griffiths's amendment, I am happy to support this, as I believe that it will introduce reasonable constraints on the rules regarding reappointments. Thank you. 

I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to speak to amendment 73 and all the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 73 imposes a two-term limit—that means six years—on members appointed to the SPC. The amendment in this group imposes a two-term limit on the members who are appointed, and having term limits for membership appointed to the social partnership council will enhance and protect democracy and the integrity of the council. It would also help to drive forward the succession planning and encourage diversity on the SPC, so that people aren't on there for a long time. That would try and improve that, so that's why the amendment is there.

Does any other Member wish to speak on this group of amendments? I'll therefore call the Minister in charge to speak on these three amendments.

Diolch. It's normal practice in public appointments that not all members will stand down at the end of their three-year term. This ensures flexibility and continuity. The Bill does not prevent reappointment of an individual to the SPC or representative serving consecutive terms. The Bill is clear that an employer or worker representative is appointed for three years unless either the First Minister terminates their appointment, or they resign by notifying the First Minister. I think it's unnecessary to spell out specific reasons on the face of the Bill why an appointment should be terminated. There needs to remain an element of discretion around appointments in order to deal with a range of different circumstances, including ensuring a mix of people with the requisite skills, background and experiences and to maintain corporate knowledge. For these reasons, the Government will not be supporting these amendments.

I call on Joel James to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. Whilst I understand the Deputy Minister's views, having such requirements woven into the legislation can play an integral role in guaranteeing a minimum level of performance from proceedings, and it is unfortunate that the Minister clearly does not see that as being a valuable addition, as I do. Thank you.

Joel James, do you wish to move amendment 36?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 36. All those against amendment 36. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 36 falls.

Joel James, amendment 37. 

The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 37. All those against amendment 37. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 37 falls.

Peredur Owen Griffiths, do you wish to move amendment 73? 

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 73. All those against amendment 73. Three in favour, three against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative—that is against the amendment—in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 73 is not agreed.

Joel James, amendment 39—sorry, I beg your pardon, amendment 38. 

Yes, please.

Do you wish to move to the vote? Yes.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 38. All those against amendment 38. One in favour, five against. Amendment 38 falls.

Joel James, amendment 39.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 39. All those against amendment 39. One in favour, five against. Amendment 39 falls.

Joel James, amendment 40.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 40. All those against amendment 40. One in favour, five against. Amendment 40 falls.

Amendment 41, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 41. All those against amendment 41. One in favour, five against. Amendment 41 is not agreed.

Amendment 42, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 42. All those against amendment 42. One in favour, five against. Amendment 42 falls.

Amendment 1, Minister.

Yes, I'd like to move.

I move amendment 1, in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any disagreement, therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 43, Joel James.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 43. All those against amendment 43. One in favour, five against. Amendment 43 is not agreed.

We now move on to group 6, which relates to sub-groups of the social partnership council. The lead amendment is amendment 44. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group. 

Thank you, Chair. I'll speak to my amendments in this group on the sub-groups of the social partnership council. Firstly, amendment 44 will ensure that the people appointed on to the sub-groups of the SPC are experienced in their fields as they're acting as an adviser to the Minister and the council. It will also ensure that both the employers and employees have equal say. Amendments 45 and 46 on the other hand will make certain that any amendments to the membership and functioning of sub-groups are presented to the SPC before a final decision is made. To me, Chair, this seems a no-brainer. It is integral to the SPC that that is an intrinsic part of this process and that it is treated with the respect that this position should hold.

Finally, amendment 47 will add the sub-section of barriers to employment. This will ensure that the voices of those who are attempting to join the workplace, but are struggling to be heard—. Chair, further to the previous points that I have made today around the wide scope of opinion that I hope the SPC draws on, I believe that the voices of those seeking to enter the workplace would also prove valuable, and bring a different dimension to other groups and to the SPC's consideration.

As to amendment 74, I am happy to support Peredur Owen Griffiths's amendment. This public procurement sub-group would benefit from the voice of at least one voluntary organisation employer. Thank you. 

Thank you. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to speak to amendment 74 and any other amendments in this group.  

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 74 places a duty on the SPC public procurement sub-group to include individuals from the third sector or voluntary sector in Wales. Our amendment in this group will place a duty on the social partnership council to have those individuals and to have that voice in there. Third sector organisations, we heard in committee, were very concerned about representation, as the SPC itself only has one member out of the nine business representatives, and this amendment seeks to increase the diversity of the voices on the SPC sub-group. Whilst being restrictive, it might be possible to achieve a similar position through guidance to the SPC on setting up the sub-groups, and I'd be happy to discuss this further ahead of Stage 3 if the Minister couldn't support the amendment. I believe that, unfortunately, Joel, amendment 44 is too restrictive with a sub-group chaired by somebody who would not necessarily have the subject area or expertise to chair it well, if it was limited on that, in my understanding of that amendment. Therefore, I will be moving my amendment, when the time comes. Thank you. 

Thank you. Does any other Member wish to speak on this group of amendments? Sarah Murphy. 

Thank you, Chair. Just to say that I think there have been a lot of suggestions throughout this process about what type of sub-groups to have, and, whereas I do think that the suggestion that you've made is something that could certainly be looked at by a social partnership council, I think that if you added one, like this, then you could add many. And I think that, as Peredur has said, this Bill is meant to be the framework so that it can give the scope to the social partnership council, and what's been set out would be very prescriptive, and it could also, whilst promoting some aspects, exclude others, which would be counterproductive. And I agree with you, Peredur, there are things here that could be discussed and arranged through the guidance instead. 

Before I call the Minister, does any other Member wish to speak? I call the Minister in charge of the legislation. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendments 44, 45, 46 and 47 deal with matters that I believe the SPC should be able to determine for itself. It will be for the SPC to determine what sub-groups it needs to establish, in the context of its work programme, which will change and develop over time. The Welsh Government's view is that the SPC should determine its own operations for itself. Such an approach is very much in keeping with putting the principles of social partnership into practice, and nothing in the Bill will prevent the SPC from establishing any sub-group that it sees fit. Sub-groups will be created when the SPC deems there is a need for increased attention and expertise on a particular issue. As the SPC will have a large remit of areas to cover, sub-groups will be able to offer additional support in carrying out the SPC's functions.

Turning to amendment 74, whilst I understand the rationale for requiring that a representative of the voluntary sector be included in membership of the procurement sub-group, there are many other sectors from which you might also expect members to be drawn, for example, the construction industry. For the reasons I've outlined previously, it's right that the establishment and membership of all sub-groups should be the responsibility of the SPC and not overly prescribed to the legislation itself. However, I'm more than happy to support the further possibilities through guidance with Members. 

Very good. I call on Joel James to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Chair. Obviously, it's disappointing that the Deputy Minister hasn't taken on these amendments. I think the barriers to employment sub-group would have been quite a worthy thing to put into legislation here, but nonetheless, I still move the amendments. Thank you. 

Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 44. All those against amendment 44. One in favour, five against. Amendment 44 is not agreed. 

Amendment 74, Peredur Owen Griffiths. You do not wish to move it. Are all Members content we do not move amendment 74? 

Amendment 45, Joel James.

I move.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 45. All those against amendment 45. One in favour, five against. Amendment 45 is not agreed. 

Amendment 46, Joel James. 

I move.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 46. All those against amendment 46. Any abstentions? I didn't see—. Jane Dodds, you were recorded as against. Is that correct? I just didn't see how you cast your vote. 

Yes, that's recorded as against, Chair. 

Thank you so much. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 46 falls. 

Joel James, amendment 47.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 47. All those against amendment 47. One in favour, five against. Amendment 47 is not agreed. 

Amendment 48, Joel James.

I move.

The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 48. All those against amendment 48. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 48 falls.

Amendment 49, Joel James. 

I move.

The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 49. All those against amendment 49. One in favour, five against. Amendment 49 is not agreed. 

Amendment 50, Joel James.

I move.

The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 50. All those against amendment 50. One in favour, five against. Amendment 50 is not agreed. 

Amendment 51, Joel James.

I move.

The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 51. [Interruption.] Okay. Sorry. Amendment 51—one Member indicated they wished to support it. Can I have a show of hands again on the objections to amendment 51? You didn't see amendment 51 being voted on by Jane. Jane Dodds, how do you wish to vote on amendment 51?

Against, Chair. 

Thank you. One Member in favour, five against. Amendment 51 falls. 

Joel James, amendment 52.

I move.

The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 52. All those against amendment 52. One in favour, five against. Amendment 52 is not agreed. 

We now move on to group 7, relating to the social partnership duty, and the lead amendment on this is amendment 53—Joel James. 

Thank you, Chair. I want to speak to my own amendments first before turning to the other amendments. Amendment 53 will ensure that public bodies will consult their trade union or staff representatives on well-being objectives. I understand from a legal point of view that there's no substantive difference in using 'consult'. However, I, like others, feel that it makes very clear the intention. 

Following that, amendment 54 will make public bodies take reasonable steps to consult trade unions and representatives on setting objectives and decision making, whilst also maintaining the flexibility for the bodies to make the best decision for the organisation, without significant bureaucracy.

Finally, amendment 55 means that the decisions of the public bodies will not be delayed for an unknown amount of time, and that, after the 30 days have elapsed, the public bodies can proceed with or without consensus. I see this as vital, Chair, as there is no mechanism to allow a public body from implementing well-being goals if an individual representative had not agreed to the suggested well-being goals. Thank you. 

Thank you. I draw Members' attention to the fact that amendments 96 and 97 are duplicate amendments that, while admissible at time of tabling, are inadmissible for the purposes of proceedings, and therefore cannot be voted on or moved.

I call on any Member who wishes to speak to any of the amendments in this group. I call on the Deputy Minister to speak, as the Member in charge, on this group of amendments. 

Thank you, Chair. Section 16 of the Bill establishes a statutory social partnership duty and sets some further specific requirements on each specified public body to, insofar as reasonable, seek consensus or compromise primarily with its recognised trade unions when taking certain actions. Where a public body does not have a recognised trade union, they must seek consensus or compromise with other representatives of its staff. In contrast to consultation, we have deliberately chosen to use the wording of 'seeking consensus or compromise' to encourage a more meaningful culture of engagement and working with work representatives, involving them in the process of setting well-being objectives. These are steps intended to involve trade unions or staff representatives in the decision-making processes, and their requirements are intended to promote a more consistent and collaborative approach to strategic decision making and connection with the public bodies' well-being duty, one which properly takes account of the views, knowledge and experiences of the workforce. So, for these reasons, the Government will not be supporting amendments 53 or 54. 

As for amendment 55, a 30-day limit on reaching agreement would be far too restrictive, so we will not be supporting that amendment either. 

Joel James, do you wish to reply to the debate? 

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Deputy Minister, for your response. Obviously, this has been one of the fundamental concerns I've had with this legislation, especially if there's no resolution mechanism within the Bill, and I felt that these amendments would go to address that. And I'm concerned, going forward, especially with the current situation of strike action we see throughout the country, that this is another bit of legislation that couldn't be used. But, with that, I still move my amendments. Thank you. 

Thank you. The question is that amendment 53 is agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 53. All those against amendment 53. One Member in favour, five against, so amendment 53 is not agreed. 

As amendment 96 is inadmissible, we now move to amendment 54. Joel James, do you wish to put this? 

The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 54. Did you vote in favour? 

Yes, Chair.

All those against amendment 54. So, Jane Dodds, could you indicate how you wish to vote on amendment 54? I think—

Chair, Jane's just messaged me to say that her internet has just gone down. 

Okay. I think we'll proceed anyway because it's not going to change the vote, however she's voting. One against and four recorded as—. Sorry, one Member in favour and four against, therefore amendment 54 is not agreed. 

And then we now move to amendment 55. Joel James, do you wish to move amendment 55? 

Yes.

The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 55. All those against amendment 55. One in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 55 is not agreed. 

I think, in light of the fact that we've lost one of our Members because of the technical connection, I suggest that we now take a break for lunch. Can I suggest that we come back at 1 o'clock for resuming in public at 1 o'clock? And hopefully, in the meantime, we'll get Jane Dodds back. Jane, we have proceeded and dealt with up to group 8, and we're going to take a break now because we weren't certain if we could get you back. So, we're going to break until 1 o'clock, and then we'll resume promptly at 1 o'clock and start with group 8. 

We now move to group 8 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill. The group 8 amendments relate to the reporting arrangements. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 56, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you, Chair. I will speak to my amendments that comprise this group. My amendments 56 to 59 serve to ensure that any reports produced by the social partnership council will have significant findings and actions to report. As the Bill stands, Chair, reports would be produced based on arbitrary timings tied to financial years rather than when there is something of substance to actually report. With these amendments, the SPC could also call for a report as and when deemed necessary. Thank you.

Are there any other Members who wish to speak to this group of amendments? I therefore call on the Minister in charge to speak to these amendments.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 56 and its consequentials removes the requirement for public bodies to produce a social partnership report each financial year and replace it with a requirement to do so as and when directed by the SPC. In my view, this would weaken the social partnership duty. The system we're creating through the Bill relies on transparency and regular reporting. The duty to produce an annual report sets a clearly defined reporting cycle that would align with public bodies' duty to report under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. There will be a clear read-across between the reporting in connection with the social partnership duty under the Bill and reporting of progress on well-being objectives under the 2015 Act, which makes such alignment a desirable feature.

The annual reporting arrangements under the Bill provide the SPC with a regular and reliable source of information to better understand whether public bodies are complying with the duty. In my view, these amendments would undermine what we are trying to achieve in terms of a new way of working, and, for that reason, I recommend the committee rejects amendments 56, 57, 58 and 59.

Thank you, Minister. Joel James, do you want to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Chair. I take on the points raised by the Deputy Minister, but I still stand by these amendments. I would like to take them to a vote. Thank you.

Okay. The question is that the amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 56. All those against amendment 56. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 56 is not agreed.

Amendment 57. Joel James, do you wish to move?

The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 57. All those opposed to amendment 57. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 57 is not agreed.

Amendment 58.

The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 58. All those opposed to amendment 58. One in favour, five against. Amendment 58 is not agreed.

Amendment 59, Joel James. Yes.

The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 59. All those against. One in favour, five against. Amendment 59 is not agreed.

We now move on to the next group of amendments, which is related to socially responsible public procurement. There's a large group of amendments, and the lead amendment is amendment 98, which is proposed by Jane Dodds.

Thank you, Chair. Diolch yn fawr iawn. I welcome the Welsh Government's stated support for global responsibility and in recognising the Welsh Government's view that this is one of the seven well-being goals. I propose that we include an amendment that is focused on global responsibility, particularly around the principles of business and human rights. I'm aware that the Welsh Government states that the proposal to ensure public bodies follow the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights is a reserved matter and therefore cannot be included within this legislation. However, the national action plan for the UK states that devolved administrations may develop their own action plans or strategies in support of this plan and in line with the commitment to implement the UNGPs. Therefore, this seems like the moment for us to include global responsibility within procurement and on the face of this Bill. I therefore move this amendment. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to speak to his amendments and any other amendments in this group.

Diolch, Chair. Our amendment 75 aims to strengthen section 24 of the Bill by making it clear that the public bodies have a global responsibility as well as a responsibility to their own local area. A number of organisations have been calling for the inclusion of global responsibility procurement. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 sees global responsibility as one of the seven well-being goals in Wales, as Jane has just explained. There is a tension, however, as there is a risk that defining 'well-being' within the local area could supersede the global responsibility. This has to be included in the legislation to ensure public bodies can be held to account if they are not acting in a globally responsible manner.

We know that an area nearly half the size of Wales was required to grow Welsh imports in an average year between 2011 and 2018, resulting in deforestation, habitat destruction, greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of exploitative labour practices. We have to show consistency in our desire for socially responsible public procurement. We have the potential to make a big difference through small changes to become a globally responsible nation, which this amendment would be part of. Wales must become a nation that, when doing anything, is improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales and takes into account whether or not doing such a thing would make a positive contribution to global well-being. This isn't the case currently and we owe it to the world to change this.

Wales has a long history of internationalism. Solidarity movements have existed over the generations with communities far afield across the globe in domains such as health, education, climate change and water, but our domestic consumption is undermining this vital global work. Our practices are driving climate change, destroying cultures and inducing human rights abuses. Our actions at home and abroad must ensure we live within our environmental means, support nature and allow people and cultures to thrive. At a time when nations need to stand together for the good of the planet, its climate, its people and its rich tapestry of life that weaves it together, Wales must act responsibly and play its part, including its negative impacts.

Our amendment seeks to achieve the same, I think, as Jane Dodds's amendments, and uses the well-being of future generations Act to do this. And, as such, I don't see the need to be prescriptive in the pieces of legislation. As such, I'll be abstaining on Jane's amendments. I believe that the Minister is trying to do the same with her amendments and has explained some of her thinking in her letter to the committee. I'd like to hear a little bit more from the Minister, when she responds, about the meeting that she had with the individuals that she talked about in her letter to see what progress can be made. But, I will be supporting the Minister's amendments. Diolch. 

Thank you. Joel James, would you like to speak to amendments 60, 61 and any other amendments in this group?

Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to my amendments, 60 and 61. These amendments will ensure that public bodies will not be able to significantly increase their purchase costs due to products being bought locally. It is not socially responsible nor is it in the public interest for public bodies to spend considerably higher amounts for the same goods and services just because they can be purchased within an area. 

As to amendments 98, 3, 4 and 107, I will be opposing them. Amendments 3 and 4, I am opposing because they invalidate a previous amendment, 103, which I am supporting. Amendment 107: I am opposed to this, because our amendment 60 has removed this line. Thank you.

Thank you. Before I call the Deputy Minister, does any other Member wish to speak on these amendments? Deputy Minister, would you like to speak to these 23 amendments?

Thank you, Chair. I'll start by commending Government amendments 2, 3 and 4, to the committee for the following reasons. The version of this Bill that was published for consultation in February 2021 included reference to fair work goals as well as the well-being goals, and the procurement duties referred to these together as 'socially responsible procurement goals'. We've taken a different approach to fair work in the Bill as laid in June, which means that socially responsible procurement goals are, in effect, well-being goals. This strengthens the link between these procurement duties and the well-being goals, and I recommend that Members accept this amendment.

I will now address the amendments 99 to 115, put forward by Jane Dodds, which are about strengthening the Bill by making explicit references to our global responsibilities, including meeting net-zero targets and giving regard to ethical trade and human rights. Although the Government fully supports the aims of these amendments, I recommend that they are all rejected for the following reasons.

Section 22 explains that a contracting authority’s 'area' is the area within which it primarily exercises its functions. For some, including the Welsh Government, this will be the whole of Wales; for others this is a more limited area. We cannot place duties on a public body designed to take effect outside of its area of operation. Under this Bill, a contracting authority’s duty is to pursue well-being goals through all of its procurement. I have already talked about the Government amendments 2, 3 and 4 that are designed to make this clearer.

Socially responsible procurement is about all of the well-being goals, so the Bill does not need to refer separately to 'socially and globally responsible procurement'. This would be repetitive, and in giving precedence to one goal over the others, it would not align with the principles of the well-being of future generations Act, which seeks to ensure a holistic approach to address all of the challenges facing Wales.

With respect to human rights, section 81 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 enshrines the concept of human rights into all the functions of the Welsh Ministers. In addition, all public authorities are required to act in a manner that is compatible with human rights by virtue of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, with the climate emergency we face, and the prevalence of human rights abuses around the world, we have a pressing need to make sure that our procurement does not support unethical and illegal practices overseas. We are committed to addressing these matters clearly in statutory guidance and to working with our expert stakeholders on guidance that will embed good practice across the public sector, but which can also be applied proportionately.

Peredur asked for information on the meeting I had with a number of NGOs, which I wrote to the committee about prior to this session today. That was a very constructive session and there were some really practical suggestions from the organisations there, whether that was to help us in this area or to support Welsh Government's work through things like secondments, but also they are committed to working with us as part of those expert stakeholders to ensure that we can do all that we can in this area, which I know members of the committee are significantly interested in.

I would make the same points in explaining my reasons for recommending that the committee rejects amendment 75, about including the need for a contracting authority to have regard to the impact of its actions on global well-being. I welcome the commitment that the Member said. Contracting authorities will have to do this to comply with the Bill as currently drafted.

Turning now to Joel James's amendments 60 and 61, amendment 60 would remove the duty on public bodies to take all reasonable steps to meet their socially responsible objectives when carrying out prescribed procurements. I recommend that this be rejected because it would weaken the Bill considerably. It forms part of the way in which the principle of proportionality is embedded in these procurement duties. However, if a contracting authority is not required to take all reasonable steps to deliver its objectives in its larger procurements, then what is the point of setting them?

One of the main purposes of these procurement duties is to make sure that contracting authorities cannot make procurement decisions based only on lowest prices. Although it is not always the case that socially responsible procurement will cost more than socially irresponsible procurement, there will be times when doing the right thing will cost more. For this reason I recommend that we reject amendment 61.

Thank you, Minister. I call on Jane Dodds to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. Diolch yn fawr iawn, and thank you too to the Minister and her team for the time that you've spent meeting with me. I realise that meeting was actually after the one when you met with the organisations. This is one I feel very passionately about. This could really show that Wales is leading the way in terms of our commitment to global human rights, and that we will take this into account when we're looking at social and ethical procurement, and also it places a duty, a very clear duty on those other organisations to do the same.

In our meeting, I know, Minister, you asked how would we do this, and one of the instruments that we have available to us—and in fact, it has been used in relation to the debate on Qatar—is our report by Amnesty International, where we are able to refer to an independent organisation that actually reports on global human rights. This is so important that Wales takes this opportunity now to demonstrate to the world that we're an international outward-facing organisation, and that human rights are at the heart of everything we do.

Finally, if I may just turn as well to—. I know that there is a commitment to say that we will put it in the statutory guidance. This wouldn't be good enough for me. We need it on the face of the Bill. Putting it in statutory guidance actually feels inconsistent, because if we're committed to it, it should be on the face of the Bill. Thank you, Chair. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 98, please indicate. One. All those against. And any abstentions? Thank you. That's one in favour, four against, and one abstention. So, amendment 98 is not agreed.

Jane Dodds, amendment 99, do you wish to put that to the vote?

I do, please, Chair.

The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I've seen an objection. All those in favour of amendment 99. All those against amendment 99. And any abstentions? So, that's two in favour, three against, and one abstention. So, amendment 99 is not agreed.

Peredur Owen Griffiths, do you wish to put amendment 75?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 75. All those against amendment 75. So, three in favour, three against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, this amendment is not agreed. Amendment 75 is not agreed.

Jane Dodds, do you wish to put amendment 100?

I do, Chair.

The question is that amendment 100 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 100. All those against. And any abstentions? So, two in favour, three against, and one abstention. Therefore, amendment 100 is not agreed.

I move amendment 2 in the name of the Deputy Minister, assuming the Deputy Minister wishes to move it.

Yes.

Thank you. Does any Member object to amendment 2? I see no objection. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

Therefore, amendment 101 falls as a result of that.

So, we now move on to amendment 102. Jane Dodds, do you wish to put amendment 102?

I do, Chair. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 102. All those against. Any abstentions? So, two in favour, three against, and one abstention. Amendment 102 is not agreed.

Amendment 103, Jane. Do you—

I do, Chair. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 103 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 103. All those against. And any abstentions? So, two in favour, three against, one abstention. So, amendment 103 is not agreed.

We now move to amendment 3. Does the Minister wish to put amendment 3?

Yes, I wish to move amendment 3.

Okay. Just to point out that if amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 104 falls.

I move amendment 3 in the name of the Deputy Minister. [Objection.] We have an objection. So, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 3. Objections? One. Any abstentions? So, three in favour, one against and—no, sorry. I'll have to take that again because I've lost the plot. [Laughter.] So, all those in favour of amendment 3. All those against. And any abstentions? So, that's four in favour, one against and one abstention. Amendment 3 is agreed.

I now move on to amendment 105.

The question is that amendment 105 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 105. All those against. And any abstentions? So, two in favour, three against and one abstention. Amendment 105 is not agreed.

Minister, do you wish to put amendment 4?

Yes, I wish to move amendment 4.

I move amendment 4, in the name of the Deputy Minister. All those in favour of amendment 4. Does anyone wish to disagree? [Objection.] You object. So, all those in favour of amendment 4. All those against. So, four in favour, two against. Amendment 4 is agreed.

As a result of agreeing amendment 4, amendment 106 falls.

Apologies, Jane Dodds; I failed to point that out at the beginning. So, we now move to amendment 60. If amendment 60 is agreed, amendment 107 falls. Do you wish to put this to a vote?

Joel James wishes to put it a vote. Is there any disagreement to that? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 60. All those against amendment 60. One in favour, five against. Amendment 60 falls.

Jane Dodds, amendment 107.

That's fallen as well.

Oh, has it? Okay.

Oh no, you're right, yes.

Thank you. [Laughter.] Jane Dodds, do you wish to put amendment 107?

I do, please, Chair.

The question is that amendment 107 is agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 107. All those against 107. And any abstentions? One in favour, four against and one abstention. So, amendment 107 is not agreed.

Joel James, amendment 61, do you wish to put it?

The question is amendment 61 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 61. All those against amendment 61. Sorry, I haven't seen Ken Skates indicating. Sorry. So, we've got one—. I'll take the whole vote again. All those in favour of amendment 61. All those against amendment 61. One in favour, five against. That amendment is not agreed.

We now move on to group 10, which relates to social public works clauses. The lead amendment in this group is Joel James's, which is amendment 62. No, I beg your pardon—. Yes, amendment 62.

Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to my amendments, which are designed to strengthen the Bill. In terms of amendment 62, you must be aware that, despite the intention to source goods and services as locally as possible, which I'm in agreement with, this could result in contracting authorities paying considerably more for goods and services to brokers who still source goods from further afield. I'm also minded that it is not necessarily in the public interest and taxpayers' interest to increase costs to a project to supply exactly the same goods that can be sourced elsewhere, unless it can be proved that the goods are from locally sourced materials.

In terms of amendment 63, and the encouragement for upskilling the workforce, one of the reasons in my mind we have lower wages in Wales is because workers in some industries are not able to move jobs easily and rapidly and find different types of work if they are made redundant, and, in order to change this, we need to help workers expand their skillsets. Workers could be encouraged to develop skills that don't necessarily follow their current job description to help build resilience in the job market. I appreciate that this is a modal clause—or a model clause—and will only be a recommendation, but, nonetheless, I think it should be included.

For amendment 65, I think that, while it is a noble endeavour to get all subsequent sub-contractors from the initial sub-contractor in the contract chain to have to adhere to the requirements of this Bill, I think, in reality, this is not workable. It's going to increase the burden of paperwork for small businesses who are struggling already with trying to stay in business. I think it will lead to some contractors who are already busy choosing not to take public contracts, which could ultimately slow down the ability of contracting authorities to complete these projects.

In terms of amendments 66 and 67, I think there is a need for a time frame to be set down for the Minister's response, because contracting authorities will be in limbo until they receive a response, which could be several months in a worst-case scenario. Thank you, Chair. 

Thank you. And I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to speak to amendments 76, 77, 78, 92 and any other amendment in this group.  

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll speak to the first of several amendments in this key area of the Bill, in Part 2. We've submitted three amendments to section 27 of the Bill, pertaining to social public works clauses in major construction contracts. For the first, in relation to equalities, it seems that the principle has been captured in the Bill, as introduced, but incomplete with certain oversights and omissions. Therefore, we've sought to add to the improvements section of the table, rather than insert a new equalities category in the left-hand column, although, arguably, there would certainly be merit in giving even greater focus, with a strengthened framing around equalities. 

Amendment 76 is crucial to make sure the Bill and the model clause, as Welsh Ministers will be obliged to publish under this section, set the gold standard in ensuring that new jobs and investment flowing from major construction contracts benefit groups and places that face structural barriers to work and have been under-represented in the workforce, therefore using procurement as a lever to create the nation of equals we want to see. As well as improving representation of these groups within and the diversity of the workforce at the most fundamental level, we envisage that expanding the improvements sought to include women, people of colour and LGBTQ+ people present an opportunity to use procurement levers to influence good practice in the private sector, for instance to advance the cause of equal pay. We know, from Chwarae Teg's latest state of the nation report, that the gender pay gap in Wales increased to 12.3 per cent. There is also an opportunity to encourage the extension of the same good practice that exists in the public services in one, granted, specifically, but nevertheless significant part of the private sector, in terms of shared parental leave, for instance. The possibilities are endless. This, in turn, will also help embed and bring to life, in a very practical sense, the aspirations that lie within our other commitments that are at the heart of Plaid Cymru's co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government, the disability taskforce, the LGBTQ+ action plan, and the race equalities action plan.  

The final amendment of ours in this grouping will give Ministers the power in the future to amend the table in section 27 via regulations. It would only allow Ministers to add categories, not to remove them, and would be subject to the affirmative resolution. Similar provisions can already be seen in this Bill, therefore additions to this section will help futureproof the legislation, subject to the appropriate oversight and agreement of the Senedd, should Ministers wish to exercise those powers in the future. Diolch. 

Before I call the Deputy Minister, does any other Member wish to speak on these points? Thank you. I call on the Member in charge to address the amendments in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll start with Joel James's amendments. No. 62 would include reference to 30 days in the prompt payment improvement category for the social public works clauses. We expect the UK-led Procurement Bill to grant regulatory powers to Welsh Ministers to make changes to this payment timescale, and we would reduce the 30-day provision should evidence suggest that this is the right thing to do. The model clauses drafted in this category would be amended to reflect any change.

Prompt payment and reference to 30 days are also mentioned in section 38, on procurement strategies, along with a clause allowing for amendments to this through regulations. Prompt payment in the social public works clauses therefore means 30-day payment, albeit this time period may be changed by regulations. I recommend that the committee rejects amendment 62.

Amendment 63 is not necessary, because appropriate training will, by definition, be about upskilling workers. One of the purposes of these social public works clauses is to make sure that the well-being outcomes that are enshrined in contracts between the contracting authority and prime contractor are monitored and delivered through what can be long and complex supply chains. Section 28(3) gives examples of the reasonable steps that contracting authorities can take to make sure that obligations agreed with a prime contractor are implemented throughout supply chains. It will be a matter for the contracting authority to decide what reasonable steps it should take, with the help of statutory guidance. Removing all but one of these examples of reasonable steps would be to weaken the contract management duties of this Bill. I recommend therefore that the committee rejects amendments 64 and 65.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns during consultation and scrutiny of this Bill about this duty on contracting authorities to notify Welsh Ministers if they do not intend to include the model clauses or monitor their implementation in supply chains. They are concerned that this process could delay a procurement, pending a consideration of the advice provided. It would seem reasonable and appropriate to limit the timescales within which Ministers should respond. However, if Ministers are not satisfied with the reasons given, they may request further information. If that information is not provided promptly or satisfactorily a 30-day response timescale may be impossible to meet. Expectations on timescales and procedures in relation to these notifications will be set out, therefore, more appropriately in statutory guidance. I recommend that the committee rejects amendments 66 and 67.

Turning to the amendments 76, 77, 78 and 92, proposed by Peredur Owen Griffiths in relation to the social public works clauses, these are about the categories of improvements within which these clauses will fall. As the Bill has been progressing through Stage 1 my officials have been holding some preliminary workshops on these social public works clauses with procurement managers, representatives from the construction industry and subject experts. The sessions on the employment category have included discussions about how these clauses might promote greater equality within the sector. I have also attended some meetings with representatives of the construction industry on socially responsible procurement and heard about how the industry is trying to improve its image and attract workers that are described as having protected characteristics under equality law.

I understand that the purpose of amendment 76 is to widen the relevant provision to include all protected characteristic groups. That is an intention I fully agree with exploring further, but the drafting of such a provision will need some careful consideration. I am happy to commit to looking at ways in which the Government might bring forward a future amendment to achieve the same end.

Amendment 77 is about promoting and facilitating use of the Welsh language in construction supply chains. Promoting use of the Welsh language has been raised in consultation, and again, it's something that, as you would expect us to do, we support fully in principle. However, the promotion of the Welsh language comes within the cultural well-being category, and what we will expect contracting authorities to consider in this area will be covered in statutory guidance and other parts of these procurement duties—for example, on the setting of objectives and publication of strategies and annual reports.

Peredur referred to the work of the Welsh Government policies and commitments to the ambitious target to increase the number of Welsh speakers to one million by 2050, and the various policies in respect of workplaces. Given the nature of the construction industry, with many small and medium-sized businesses in our supply chains on public contracts, we are concerned that placing obligations around Welsh language promotion may be disproportionate, making public sector contracts less attractive. Once again, I ask the committee to reject this amendment, but I am happy to ask officials to give this matter further thought and to update the committee in advance of Stage 3, and I definitely take on board the points that Peredur made with regards to the reference to best practice and particular companies to see what can be learned in respect of this legislation, or statutory guidance around that as well.

Amendment 78 allows for the categories and improvements to be amended in future. We do not think it likely that these categories will change, and it is important that we achieve the right balance between being comprehensive and also relevant and proportionate with these clauses. However, since we are recommending amendments allowing for changes by regulations to other parts of these procurement duties, we will give this further thought.

I recommend therefore that the committee rejects amendments 76, 77, 78 and 92, but I am happy to commit to consider these sections of the Bill further prior to Stage 3 of the Bill.

Thank you, Minister. I call on Joel James to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Deputy Minister. I'm grateful that you've recognised the issues that surround amendments 62. We're obviously disappointed that you've not supported them, as I feel that, without recognising the potential negative impact that this is going to have on those at the bottom of the subcontractor chain, this Bill could potentially be harmful to them and to other businesses. But, with that in mind, I still move for it to go to the vote. Thank you.

Okay. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 62. All those against. One Member in favour, five against, so amendment 62 is not agreed. 

I now move to amendment 76. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 76. All those against amendment 76. That's three in favour, three against. As this is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 76 is not agreed. 

Joel James, amendment 63. 

The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 63. All those against. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 63 is not agreed. 

Peredur Owen Griffiths, amendment 77. 

Move.

The question is that amendment 77 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 77. All those against amendment 77. Three in favour, three against. As this is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 63—is it 63—77 is not agreed. Apologies. Amendment 77 is not agreed. 

We move to amendment 78. If amendment 78 is not agreed, amendment 92 falls. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 78. All those against amendment 78. Three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 78 is not agreed and amendment 92 falls.

Joel James, amendment 64.

The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 64. All those against amendment 64. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 64 is not agreed.

Amendment 65, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 65. All those against amendment 65. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 65 is not agreed.

Amendment 66.

The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 66. All those against amendment 66. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 66 is not agreed.

Amendment 67, Joel James.

The question is that amendment 67 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 67. All those against. One in favour, five against, therefore amendment 67 is not agreed.