The next item on our agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the Trade Unions (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement in relation to the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, introduced on Monday.

The Bill seeks to disapply sections 3, 13, 14 and 15 of the UK Trade Union Act 2016 as they apply to public services in Wales. There will be many Members here who recall the background to this Bill. The UK Conservative Government, following the General Election of 2015, introduced a Bill that sought to curtail the rights of trade unions and their members in a series of significant areas. The Welsh Government repeatedly intervened to set out our belief to UK Ministers that the Bill trespassed directly into the conduct of devolved public services, and that the Bill should be amended to exclude Wales from those provisions that cut across the responsibilities of this Assembly. My predecessor, Leighton Andrews, wrote to his counterpart, the First Minister wrote to the then Prime Minister, and the Conservative Minister of State for Skills wrote to his colleagues informing them that the legal advice from First Treasury Counsel concluded that the UK Government had a very weak case in relation to Wales. The National Assembly itself, in a vote on 26 January, decisively declined to support a legislative consent motion to allow the UK Government to legislate for Wales in this area.

None of that mattered. The UK Government went ahead anyway, claiming their ‘very weak case’ was sufficient to deny this Assembly’s competence in this area. Let me deal, then, immediately with that competence issue. The Supreme Court has made it clear that provided a Bill provision fairly and realistically relates to one or more of the subjects in Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, and does not fall within any exception in that Schedule, it does not matter whether a provision might also be classified as relating to a subject that has not been devolved, such as employment rights and industrial relations.

Significant elements in the UK Government’s Act relate specifically to public services that in Wales are unambiguously devolved responsibilities. The Act refers explicitly to health services, the education of those aged under 17 and fire services—all of which are plainly devolved. It is untenable, we believe, for UK Ministers to argue that their legislation must be regarded as concerned exclusively with non-devolved matters. It is this Government’s view that the relevant provisions of the Government of Wales Act 2006, insofar as they involve the delivery of public services, are to be found set out in section 108 and Schedule 7 to that Act and that they bring the provisions of this Bill squarely within the devolved competence of this National Assembly.

Now, Llywydd, all of this was well known and extensively rehearsed when the original UK Bill was making its way through the Houses of Parliament. Despite all that, the Government at Westminster decided to go ahead anyway. They had no political mandate to do so for Wales, they had no constitutional right to do so and they had no legal basis on which to do so, but none of that could stand in the way of their ideological determination to attack the rights of organised labour.

As that became clear, my predecessor provided a commitment to bring forward a Bill in the fifth Assembly to reverse the effect of these provisions and to reflect the outcome of the LCM debate. That position was reflected in the Labour manifesto at May’s election last year, it was confirmed by the First Minister when he set out the legislative programme for the first year on this Assembly term on 28 June last year, and the Bill before you today is the product of that history. It is a brief Bill, but one with a significant task of protecting the long and successful tradition of social partnership in Wales, because that is what is at the root of our objections to the UK Trade Union Act.

The result of the confrontational approach to industrial relations is to be seen every day across our border where the politics of social division lead inevitably to damage to the economy and to public services. Here in Wales, our record is very different. In 2014, when firefighters were on strike in England, we reached an agreement with the Fire Brigades Union in Wales and strike action was avoided here. In 2015, when I was health Minister in Wales, nurses, midwives, occupational therapists and others were on strike in England. Here, we negotiated and we negotiated hard with our ‘Agenda for Change’ staff to find an outcome that was acceptable to them and affordable to us. No strikes took place in Wales. In 2016, the health service in England was scarred by that bitter dispute with junior doctors, which we were able to avoid here in Wales.

Llywydd, the damage does not end when strike action finishes. The legacy is real and the damage goes on. Alongside its Trade Union Act, the UK Government consulted on proposals to rescind regulations that prevent the supply of agency workers to cover industrial action. We have therefore consulted on proposals to sustain the principle that agency workers should not be deployed in that way. The consultation has now closed and the results are being analysed. One option would be for us to include provision in this legislation by way of amendment in later stages, provided the Bill makes progress. I will provide a further statement to Members as consultation analysis comes to an end.

Now, all of this, Llywydd, is why we work so hard to make the social partnership model work in Wales. The delivery of high-quality, devolved public services depends upon an engaged and committed workforce. For our key services, recruiting, retaining, developing and enabling a stable and engaged workforce is vital to shaping and securing the future of those services. And it’s in order to achieve that aim that the Welsh Government works collaboratively and in partnership with Welsh public authorities, including employers, employees and their representatives. That social partnership model is put at risk by the divisive provisions of the UK Act. It is our clear view, and that of trade unions and public service employers in Wales, that its effect will be to lead to more confrontational relationships between employers and workers and so undermine the delivery of public services and the Welsh economy. Our Bill seeks simply to reinforce and protect our social partnership arrangements by maintaining the existing settled arrangements within the Welsh public sector, which have supported positive employer-employee relationships, including the right of trade unions to organise and, when other avenues have been exhausted, to take industrial action. It requires a culture of integrity, openness and trust, in which the shared aim is of early resolution of disagreement and the pursuit of consensus, even when there are difficult decisions to be made.

Llywydd, we have a successful model here in Wales. It is not for UK Ministers to invent some new doctrine in which they claim a right to interfere in areas that, under the terms of our current settlement, are unequivocally devolved to the Assembly and to do so in a way that is entirely contradictory to our approach to public services. It is for this Assembly, rightfully, to decide how we want to see those services delivered in Wales. That is the position that our Bill sustains, and I look forward to working with Members here and others to secure its passage onto the statute book.

I’d like to begin my contribution this afternoon by reminding everyone that Plaid Cymru strongly opposed the British state’s Trade Union Act 2016 when it was brought forward to the last Assembly, because Plaid Cymru strongly believes in the importance of the work of the trade unions in our society and supports those unions. It’s only through partnership between workers, industry, employers and the Government that we can make the best of our economy, and by respecting our workforce in full we can reduce dispute and the need for industrial action.

Everyone in this Chamber will recall the difficulties at the Ferodo site in my constituency at the turn of this century. The Friction Dynamics affair highlighted the absence of justice for the workforce and how the imbalance of employment law assisted the efforts of the employers to destroy the trade unions in the workplace. That ultimately led to the closure of the works at the expense of the community. Although the strikers followed all the complex rules and regulations that control industrial action, the company broke many rules without anyone taking any action against them. This was a very dark chapter in the history of my area and we must avoid similar situations in future.

This Bill, therefore, is a clear effort by this national institution to protect the rights of workers in Wales, in areas that are devolved specifically to this National Assembly. This Bill is undemocratic according to the Conservatives in England, which is an arrogant claim, if I may say so. I am referring here to the debate on the thresholds, and on that basis, I want to share an interesting scenario with the Chamber: what would happen if we were to use what the UK Government define as a reasonable threshold and a democratic mandate for industrial action, which is captured under the trade union Act, to the result of the general election of 2015? I am talking specifically about that 50 per cent threshold and the 40 per cent threshold. If that were to be the situation, this would have been the outcome: the Conservatives achieved 37 per cent of the national vote on the basis of the total vote of 66 per cent. Introducing a 40 per cent threshold, that figure falls dramatically to 24 per cent of those registered to vote. That would have meant that the Conservatives wouldn’t have reached the necessary threshold and therefore would not have been elected, which would have created a very interesting situation indeed.

What’s true of democracy in Wales, of course, is that participating in a democratic vote is a choice, without any specific thresholds being put in place by any Government. Whatever the differences between us as political parties in this Assembly, with Plaid Cymru often challenging the current Labour Government on the way it deals with public services, it is a fact that Wales is not a nation affected by industrial action very often. As you mentioned three particular examples, the trade unions are less likely to take industrial action here, and I would argue, as you have done, that this is because of the existence of the social partnership. That is also true in Scotland. That has emerged over the past year with the junior doctors’ strike that happened in England only. There was no such strike here in Wales or in Scotland, and this is mainly down to the social partnership approach taken here.

The Labour Party claims that it’s the party of the trade unions and the workers, but, unfortunately, the stance of the party since the days of Tony Blair has contradicted that at times. Indeed, since the dark days of Thatcher, when a number of new rules and regulations were introduced with the intention of weakening the trade union movement, such as making secondary pickets illegal, the Labour Party did nothing to overturn those damaging policies during Tony Blair’s tenure as Prime Minister. But I am pleased to see the efforts made in this Assembly, at least—. [Interruption.] I am pleased, having said that—having made some comments about the Labour Party and their record, which perhaps isn’t the record that one would have hoped for during the time of New Labour—I am pleased to see the efforts in this Assembly, at least, to challenge these most recent attacks by the Conservatives on workers’ rights here in Wales. The greatest tragedy of this Bill is the inability of the Welsh Government under the current devolved settlement, and for the future too under the Wales Bill that was approved here yesterday, to extend and safeguard workers’ rights outside of the public sector in Wales. I hope that we can all collaborate on a cross-party basis on this issue in order to protect and promote the positive role that trade unions can and should play in Welsh society today.

Thank you very much, Sian Gwenllian, for those comments. I acknowledge, of course, that Plaid Cymru was part of the opposition to the original Bill in Westminster and here on the floor of the Assembly too. And the things that Plaid Cymru said at that point focused on partnership and the way in which we try to approach things here in Wales. I fully remember standing outside Ferodo in Caernarfon with the last First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, talking to the people who were suffering from what was going on at that factory. In my view, if we can proceed in a cross-party manner, that will be of great assistance in supporting the Bill and supporting the steps that we want to take here in Wales to make progress in the successful way that we have developed here in Wales, and to keep that for the future.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We appreciate that trade unions are valuable institutions in British society, and that many dedicated trade unionists have a strong history of working hard to represent their members, campaigning for improved safety at work and providing support to their members where needed. However, it is only fair that the rights of unions are balanced equally with the rights of our hard-working taxpayers, who rely so heavily on the delivery of our key public services. The aim of the UK Trade Union Act 2016 is to rebalance the interest of employers, employees and the public with the freedom of trade unions to strike. It has moved public services away from the threat—the threat—[Interruption.]

Sorry, Janet. Can I just ask that the counter-argument, possibly, to this statement be allowed to be made and to be heard? Diolch, Janet.

[Continues.]—of being held to ransom by a small minority of union members who could disrupt the lives of millions of commuters, parents, workers and employers at short notice, and without clear support from the union’s members. Cabinet Secretary, if a teacher or a public service manager on high salaries—£40,000 or £50,000—strikes, many parents on much lower salaries are then affected. They’re the ones unable to send their children to school; they’re the ones unable to actually attend their own work; they’re the ones themselves losing pay. Is this not about affecting our—. Isn’t this just affecting our middle-class public sector workers at the expense and inconvenience of the lower socioeconomic members of our society?

Llywydd, it is completely sensible that such strikes only take place on the basis of a reasonable turnout and a substantial vote in favour by those able to vote. They should have that freedom of choice. Isn’t it the reality, though, that this isn’t about protecting our workers; this is simply about Welsh Labour and the Welsh Labour Government rewarding the trade union barons on whom your party relies so heavily, financially, especially during election times? I see a massive conflict of interest on the part of your party and this Government.

Prior to the UK Act, seven out of 10 trade unions, with their political funds in Great Britain, make absolutely no reference to the right to opt out of political funds on their membership forms. How fair is this on our hard-working public sector employees? Where is the freedom? Where is the choice? The UK Act requires trade unionists to opt in—a much fairer and a much more equal policy—to political funding, as has so successfully worked in Northern Ireland since the 1920s. Such measures bring trade unions in line with corporate donations, as outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Cabinet Secretary, is this something that your proposed Bill will seek to repeal?

It is disappointing that, having voted through the LCM on the long-awaited Wales Bill only yesterday, you are already seeking to undermine this forthcoming new devolution settlement by introducing a Trade Union (Wales) Bill. I am not sure that my constituents in Aberconwy see this as one of their priorities, and they certainly don’t see it as one of yours for this Government to make. This is a blatant attempt to undermine a UK Parliament Act that is safeguarding our public workforce and seeks to avert major disruption to our vital public services.

Cabinet Secretary, the Llywydd has noted in her correspondence to the Chair of the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee that some or all of the operative provisions of this Bill might be ruled outside Assembly competence if the Bill was referred to the Supreme Court under section 112 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or challenged after Royal Assent. So, I would like to ask you here, today: what actual cost-benefit analysis have you undertaken in bringing forward such legislation, particularly on a matter that, shortly, will be fully codified in law as being reserved at UK level? Has the civil service scoped the extent to which this legislation will have an impact on our people in Wales? And, what scrutiny have you even thought about or given to the impact on cross-border companies that may well now decide to do business outside Wales as a result of this?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, will you advise why you think that acting to repeal a UK Parliament Act that safeguards ordinary working people from undemocratic strike action ensures greater transparency, and how taxpayers’ money being simply diverted from public services to union officials is a good idea for the people of Wales? I think it is a disgrace that you’re even considering bringing this Bill forward. I will be seeking to put amendments to it and I will certainly be opposing it.

Diolch yn fawr. A bit difficult to know quite where to make a start on that rehearsal of clichés, ancient and modern. I think the Tory position was very well captured in the very first sentence of Janet Finch-Saunders’s contribution when she sought to do what the Tories do all the time, which is to pit one group of people against another, when she referred to workers, not taxpayers, as though workers were not taxpayers, and yet every trade unionist captured by this Bill is a taxpayer in their own right. But that is a very, very standard Tory approach, to try and pit one group of people in our society against another. That’s why their original Bill was so badly flawed. It will add to, not subtract from, the risk of bad industrial relations. The reason why we are so determined to bring forward our Bill is that we are confident that it will improve the conduct of industrial relations in Wales. It will avoid the necessity for strikes, because it will do the hard work of social partnership.

Now, when I was talking to those trade union barons in the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association about strikes going on across our border, it was not because the challenge we face in Wales was any less than it was elsewhere, it was simply because by bringing people around the table, by being prepared to listen carefully to what they had to say, by being prepared to recognise the point of view that they were expressing on behalf of their members, and then to do the hard work of trying to find a way through those difficulties, that we avoided the position that the NHS in England has found itself in, and found itself in in a serial fashion.

Llywydd, I don’t wish to be unkind, but I suppose I would have to say that it would have been helpful if the Member had managed to read the three clauses of the Bill before this afternoon. It is a very short Bill, after all. I think she would have found that the cost-benefit analysis she looked for is there in the regulatory impact assessment. It would have allowed her not to make her final point about companies taking business across our border, when this is a Bill entirely about the provision of public services. So, I think many of the bogeymen that the Member has marched across the floor of the Assembly this afternoon turn out not to be there at all. The purpose of the Bill is entirely the opposite of the one that she pointed to. It will help avoid strikes, it will help promote social partnership, it will do things in a way that is right for Wales, and I look forward to opposing her through every single step of this Bill.

UKIP applauds the social partnership approach of the Welsh Government, because no sensible person wants to see confrontation in industrial relations. The Cabinet Secretary and I are old enough to remember a time when there really was confrontation in industry and in public services in this country. That’s why the trade union reforms of the 1980s were brought in. In the 1970s, there was an average of 13 million days lost to strikes every year. In the 1980s that halved to 7 million; in the 1990s it was down to 660,000, where it’s been—broadly speaking—static ever since. That’s why the Labour Governments under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made no attempt to repeal the legislation that they and their predecessors so vigorously opposed when it was passing through the House of Commons in the 1980s.

If the social partnership model of the Welsh Government is so successful, which it appears to be, I can’t really understand why they think that the proposed measure being introduced at Westminster is such a threat to the good relations that currently exist between public service unions and the government in its various forms in Wales. Because the illusory threat of having to have a strike ballot to reach the thresholds in the proposed legislation won’t even be triggered, because of the approach that the Welsh Government takes. So, I wonder what is the purpose of introducing the Bill, to take up the time of this Assembly, when there are many more pressing matters that we can use the time upon. It is a fact that trade unions are virtually extinct, or at least redundant, outside the public sector in the United Kingdom today. In the real world, as it were, where people have to trade their services, trade unions no longer seem to have very much of a role. As voluntary membership organisations, they have to persuade people to stump up their membership subscriptions, and they haven’t been terribly successful at persuading their potential members to do so. In the public sector, it’s very, very different. There’s a very high proportion of people who join a union. That is because the difference between the public and the private sector is that decisions, ultimately, in the public sector are political, because the employers, ultimately, are politicians and, therefore, this is the way in which pressure is brought.

I think anything that makes it easier to call a strike in these circumstances is a threat to the interests of the public at large. After all, trade unions and their members are a sectional interest, not the public as a whole, and we’re talking here, 100 per cent, about public services that every single elector and the elector’s children will use at some time during the year. Surely, the interests of the public must take precedence over sectional interests, and therefore it is right that there should be a reasonable threshold before calling a strike. Strikes should be not the first resort, but the last resort. I therefore ask the Cabinet Secretary: why are we playing with fire in this instance?

It will be no surprise to Members here that I don’t agree with the Member’s recollection of history, but it isn’t just his understanding of the past that’s at fault here, it’s his understanding of the present as well. His idea that there are no unions involved in private companies in Wales—has he not heard of Ford or Tata or Toyota or many other private sector employers that I could mention? I have to say to him what the First Minister said to him yesterday: his interest in reasonable thresholds was much less to be seen during the referendum campaign, when he was not interested in introducing artificial thresholds into that piece of voting.

He asked me about the provisions in our Bill. Let me just give him one example of why we are so determined to act. The UK Government’s Bill places new barriers in the path of workplace representation. Now, why do we think that having proper access to time in order to represent your members is so important? It’s because you cannot have a social partnership model unless all the partners at the table have access to the time they need in order to discharge their responsibilities. It simply makes the likelihood of strikes greater, not less, if employers are unable to speak directly, in a timely fashion, on behalf of those people they represent. All our Bill does is to retain the status quo in that regard—the status quo that has been successful. His way of doing things would take us backwards.

Our aim is to make sure that the future of industrial relations in our great public services is properly sustained by a balanced set of relationships between the Welsh Government, employers and employees. I say again to Assembly Members: this is not a Bill simply supported by trade unions, it is supported by the great public service employers as well. They see the advantages of having proper representation for their workers, because that’s how they have the dialogue they need in order to address and resolve the collective issues that face them.

There’s some kind of comfort, actually, in listening to the Tories, because you do realise, after all, that they are still the same old Tories and nothing’s ever changed. But, Cabinet Secretary, can I say that I’ve spent most of my working life campaigning and fighting against anti-trade union legislation and against attacks on working people, and it’s refreshing and very welcoming to hear your statement today? It’s seen that the Welsh Government is seeking to overturn the most recent attacks on trade unions from what can only be described as the most vindictive trade union Bill that we’ve seen in recent times. As Neil Hamilton, actually, said in his contribution, strikes are down, public services workers generally have not been involved in conflicts in Wales and so on, but, despite all of that—despite the record lowest strike days in living memory—we’ve still got a trade union Bill that was introduced to try to prevent strike action.

There are many aspects in the statement, Cabinet Secretary, that I welcome, but I particularly want to deal with the artificial threshold for industrial action that Sian Gwenllian was talking about, and I totally agree with the points that she was making. Whilst industrial action is always a last resort and something that we have largely avoided here in Wales, as you mention in your statement, we have to acknowledge that, in a free society, it must be a tool available as a last resort to working people. If we start going down the slippery slope of saying that that should not happen, we are also going down the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. Surely, no fair-minded individual would understand the logic in applying thresholds to determine the democratic outcome of an industrial action ballot—that is different to every other democratic process that we have in our country. As Sian Gwenllian has already said, if we applied that, we wouldn’t be talking about Brexit; if we applied that, only 25 per cent of Tory MPs would be elected; if we applied that, not one of us in this room would be sat in this Assembly; if we applied that, we wouldn’t have a councillor in Wales. So, let’s just move away from the nonsense that this is, somehow, a fair way of dealing with workers.

Frankly, my assessment of what I’ve heard from the Tories, throughout the time that the trade union Bill was going through in England, is that these people don’t actually understand how trade unions work. I spent 30 years working as a trade union official, and my experience was that, whenever there was a ballot for industrial action, which was always—always—as a last resort of anything that workers ever did, people had the right to partake in that ballot or not, as was their choice. If they chose not to take part in that ballot, my experience was that, regardless of whether they had participated, they honoured the democratic outcome of that ballot in exactly the same way as my constituents, whether they voted for me or not, whether they voted for anyone or not, have had to accept that I am now the elected representative for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. It’s no different in terms of industrial action ballots for trade unions.

What I would say is that trade union members do understand the role that their elected representatives and officials take in negotiating with employers, and, when those representatives make recommendations to them, they are happy to accept it, and they don’t need to be tied into a threshold around ballots to take decisions around industrial action.

So, ultimately, Cabinet Secretary—because I’m coming onto the point that I wanted to raise with you—under pressure from the Lords, in the Trade Union Act in England, the Government has agreed to a review of electronic balloting, because that was one of the biggest obstacles for trade unions in terms of involvement of members in ballots. Once workplace balloting was removed, it became very, very difficult to actually get that level of involvement. So, does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that any mechanism that facilitates greater participation in ballots is to be welcomed? Because trade unions, despite what we have heard, do actually want to see their members involved in these processes. Can I ask him, rather than just looking to rely on a review of the benefits of electronic balloting, whether he would consider going a step further in allowing electronic balloting, or workplace ballots, even, in devolved public services?

Can I thank the Member for her utterly effective demolition of the case that some Members have tried to make here this afternoon in relation to ballot thresholds? In a previous life, Llywydd, I would have to sit across the table, as the health Minister, from the Member when she was a full-time trade union official, and a formidable trade union official she was. If I think back on that time, I remember a few sleepless nights, when I worried about how I would be able to take forward some of the things that she wished to advocate on behalf of her members. But, most of all, I remember the incredible work that she and her colleagues in that union carried out every single day, in order to prevent problems—which could have escalated and led to greater difficulty—how they got stuck in, how they represented their members and how they solved those problems. What an astonishing asset it is to our public services to have that group of people who carry out that activity on behalf of workers in our public services every single day.

On the point that the Member raised about electronic balloting, and then, of course, the independent review of electronic balloting, which is now under way, and came, of course, as a hard-won concession during the passage of the Act, I think electronic balloting has the clear potential to increase participation in democratic balloting for industrial action, and that is to be welcomed. The fact that there is an independent review now happening to explore the arguments and take evidence is another step forward, secured by the trade union movement. I look forward to the outcome of that review with great interest, and to seeing what use we can then make of it here in Wales.

I have a long list of speakers wanting to ask questions of the Cabinet Secretary within the hour. Lead spokespeople of parties have now contributed, so with succinct questions from Members, I hope to get through all requests. This is a statement, not a debate. Bethan Jenkins.

Diolch. I would like to echo what Sian Gwenllian has already said, and also pick up on the points eloquently made by Dawn Bowden also in relation to the fact that I think some people in this Chamber don’t actually understand how decisions are made in trade unions. I’ve never been in a discussion where striking is a first resort—it’s always been, in fact, erring on the side of caution, and wanting to do anything but get to that particular action.

Obviously, we’ve seen that there is precedent here, in relation to the agricultural wages Bill, and as far as I can tell, the way is clear, therefore, for the Assembly to introduce this Bill. But there is always a ‘but’, and I do worry about how long any Act will last. So, my question is: can I seek assurances from the Welsh Government, if you have had assurances from your officials, that you’ve got to the point of understanding that it won’t be superseded by the Wales Bill? What is stopping the UK Government from passing further legislation that will have the effect of cancelling out this Bill? Has the Welsh Government any contingency plans for this eventuality? And are you justifying using time and resources on the basis that this could be realistic? Coming from comments that Janet Finch-Saunders has outlined today, I would predict that it could be very much something that the UK Government would look to doing, despite the fact that they have enough work on their plate to be looking to getting us a fair deal for Brexit.

I also would like to pick on the point briefly with regard to the competence issue. The Tories are saying that the competence is in question, but would you not agree with me that it is hypocritical for the Conservatives to say that it is not within competence, when they voted against it originally? Surely they should have abstained at that point if they thought that there was a question over competence that has now come to light.

Those are my questions here today. But I think what we need to remember in all of this is that it’s not about political barons, it’s not about whether money goes to whichever political party—it is about fighting for the rights and the welfare of those workers. And more fool us not to recognise that, because, whether you’re a member of a political party or not, we have to remember that people don’t take action lightly, and they’re doing it to support their families, to support their communities. And that is why this Bill is important—not some sort of convoluted political argument over whether it should happen or not.

I entirely agree with the last point that the Member made, and it’s an important point to get on the record. I agree with her as well—the fact that there was a vote allowed here on an LCM in the previous Assembly, and the fact that political parties across the Assembly took part in it, suggests that those political parties agreed that there was a competence issue at stake here.

Her first question was about whether the Bill will be superseded by the Wales Bill. Just to be clear, as Members here will know, this Bill begins under the devolution settlement we have today, provided that we can complete Stage 1 before the Wales Bill comes into force. Then it will continue under our current settlement. We’re very confident that we’ve timed it so that we’re able to do that.

Her second question though is a more difficult question, isn’t it? Because, in the end, as we know, the House of Commons retains the ability to overturn anything we do, whatever the argument of competence might be. I simply say that it would be a democratic outrage if this Assembly were to debate this Bill, were to agree to this Bill, were to put it on the statute book for public services, entirely devolved here in Wales, for a body outside of this Assembly to seek to overturn it.

Just in the interest of transparency—although it’s not a registrable interest—I should explain that I’m a member of the Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists group. There’s been a lot of political passion in this today, but I just want to get to the heart, Cabinet Secretary, of why, out of the whole of the trade union Act—I know we’ve talked a lot about the thresholds today—you’ve chosen to amend section 172A and section 116B. Because in the case of the amendment to section 172A, I don’t think there’s any restrictions in that original section; it’s merely a reporting requirement, which, from my perspective, seems to be about ensuring the efficient use of public money and that, of course, should be of interest to you as Cabinet Secretary, as well as employers and employees. They’re constantly reviewing the cost-effectiveness of their activities and procedures paid for from the public purse. I’m not quite sure why trade union reps, often in the very same building, are excused that. Very similarly, where the employer bears the entire cost of administering subs, surely the other question, in this day of Pingit apps and so forth, is whether this presumption of it being the employer’s role to do this is still current.

So, my questions are: what consideration have you given to the usefulness of the information that could be collected under section 172A to help manage public finances? What consideration has been given to the cost-effectiveness of other forms of collecting subs and whether it’s reasonable for wealthy trade unions—not the individual members, but the trade unions themselves—to contribute to the cost of their activities when these costs are currently being met entirely by the employer—activities covered by those two sections?

Bearing in mind your written statement and the work that you’re doing on agency work, can you confirm that, effectively, the Bill as laid now, is a Trojan horse Bill and that you’re planning to introduce a number of amendments to cover work that you’ve not been able to do in time for tabling this Bill when you have, and that you have tabled this Bill as a result of the Lords split vote fairly recently? This is an important matter for this Assembly because, from what I can see from your explanatory memorandum, your consultation has been restricted to the workforce council, which does not cover the whole of Wales, and it was on the UK Bill rather than the specifics of this Bill. Furthermore, it’s completely unclear which legislative process is subject to Assembly scrutiny with regards to this Bill being commenced, and bearing in mind that you’re proposing to commence this Bill by regulations, I really would be grateful if you could give some clarity on that.

First of all, to be clear, the workforce partnership council does cover the whole of Wales. It is a Wales-wide body; it has members on it who have a Wales-wide remit. The consultation on agency workers was by no means confined to the workforce partnership council; it was available to any organisation or individual anywhere in Wales, or beyond indeed, to make a contribution to that consultation. The Bill is not a Trojan horse Bill. In fact, it’s anything but. It is a very narrow and very specific and tightly drawn Bill, where amendments will only be allowed if they are able to be brought forward within that very tight and specific ambit. There is no coincidence in the timing of the Bill and anything that happened in the House of Lords or anything that happened here in relation to the Wales Bill. As I explained in my statement, this was a commitment in Labour’s manifesto; it was signalled by the First Minister back in June of last year and the fact that we happened to have these things in front of the Assembly in the same week is simply an accident of timing and nothing more.

In relation to the questions that the Member asked me about the content of the Bill, then the answer is this: we seek to remove those additional impediments that the UK Bill places in the path of trade union members being able to pay their subscriptions in a straightforward way, and trade unions themselves being able to discharge their responsibility on behalf of those members. We are seeking simply to sustain the status quo. It is the Conservative Party that seeks to add new impediments in the path of those ways of doing things. I am entirely content that all the measures that we take in this Bill are consistent with our pursuit of effective social partnership.

I speak today as a Member who is proud to have served working people in my former role as a trade union official, and is proudly committed to continuing to stand up for hard-working and often undervalued public servants as an Assembly Member. It also means that I am probably coming at this from a slightly healthier understanding, perhaps, of the issues than others who have contributed today. We are proud of our social partnership in Wales, and it’s not just for the sake of doing things differently from Westminster. It is actually because it does reap results and it is for the benefit of the worker, workplace and Government. The Cabinet Secretary mentioned the ‘Agenda for Change’ negotiations of a couple of years ago, where I also had the privilege of sitting on the other side of the table. While those discussions were tough and compromises were involved, we got there. Compare that to what happened with my then colleagues over the border in England, who had the door firmly shut in their faces, which ultimately led to industrial action that we did not see here.

Restrictions on facility time for local reps will damage this social partnership and erode the work done by trade unions to improve equal opportunities and practices, and remove one of the best protections that employees currently have from discriminatory treatment. Facility time potentially pays dividends for both employers and workers, and these attacks on facility time in the UK Government legislation have the potential to damage workplace productivity and employee well-being. There is definitely a gap between the well-rehearsed rhetoric that we are hearing around this debate and the actual reality of real life. Failure to have adequate facility time could actually, in fact, result in a higher cost to the employer, as they will be required to negotiate and consult with individual employees. The employer will also potentially see increased caseloads, as much trade union time is spent resolving these issues before they escalate into full cases. So, Cabinet Secretary, can I say: do you actually recognise the reality of the work that local union representatives do, and that it is helpful rather than harmful, and that facility time is an essential part of empowering employees and should be both protected and respected?

Llywydd, I entirely agree with the point that the Member makes. Of course, facility time pays dividends for employers. It was a point made by the WLGA yesterday in the statement they put out welcoming the Bill. That is because employers recognise the work that trade union representatives up and down our public services do every day. It is a point I made in replying to the Member for Merthyr and Rhymney. In my experience, as a Minister at the time with responsibility for one of our great public services, the smooth running of those services, the solving of problems in those services, and the corralling of evidence from employees of where the service could be made better—those things were immensely improved by the availability of local representatives, absolutely dedicated to those public services and able to bring those matters to the attention of employers through sensible and effective use of facility time.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your statement this afternoon. I agree with you that unions do play an important role in the workplace, especially in righting wrongs that workers might face. They have, over many years, improved working conditions across the United Kingdom. But the issue for many people is the politicisation of many of those unions and, in particular, the detachment of what the general secretaries of many of those unions are seeking to achieve in the political arena from the workers who have historically signed up to be members of those unions. I do find it somewhat galling to hear the Cabinet Secretary say that the UK Government do not have a mandate. This was part of the manifesto of 2015 that was endorsed by the British people, and, when the Cabinet Secretary talks about the social model here in Wales, I’m only now reading about the strike that is going to be taking place in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board, where the Unison organiser there says,

Hospital sterilisation staff don’t feel the health board is listening to them or properly understands the work they undertake.’

This is a statement. [Interruption.] I’d love to take the intervention, but, sorry, I can’t. It goes on to say that staff feel as if they’ve just walked in off the street.

Just before Christmas, we were dealing with a strike in the national museums, which the Welsh Government were particularly slow at dealing with. Many of us will remember that, when you were the health Minister here in Wales, the BMA had the temerity to point out the troubles that were facing the health service in September 2014, and they were thrown to the wolves in this Chamber by the First Minister for daring to point out some of the fault lines in the Welsh NHS. They took the unprecedented step of every single chair of their committees, from their consultants committee to the junior doctors committee, sending a letter to each and every Member in this Chamber. So, please, do not try and paint some glorified picture that doesn’t exist; it might in your fantasy land, Cabinet Secretary, but it doesn’t exist in Wales today, I have to tell you.

We will be challenging this Bill as it goes through the Assembly, and also in committee, as Janet Finch-Saunders has highlighted, not because we oppose the role of unions, because we believe unions have a valuable role in improving workers’ rights. But what we oppose is the politicisation of what the general secretaries are trying to achieve by working hand in glove with the Labour Party. But the specific question I would like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, is in particular about your last paragraph, where it says,

It is for this Assembly rightfully to decide how we want to see those services delivered in Wales’.

Do you believe that, if you think that you have a case to legislate on terms and conditions, therefore you are opening the door to regional pay, and actually you will be doing a huge disservice to public sector workers in this country by prosecuting your case to make this Bill stand on the statute book? I believe that you are offering the introduction of regional pay if you persist with this Bill, Cabinet Secretary.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for his contribution. I don’t agree with his final point. I think it is stretching the argument well beyond where the facts would take it in order to suggest that this Bill, which simply disapplies a number of trade union-related matters, somehow opens the door to regional pay in Wales. I simply don’t accept his argument there.

I think it’s right that I should point out to him that the strike action in ABMU, were it to go ahead, would have met the thresholds in the legislation that his party has put on the statute book. So, there would be no recourse there.

As far as his points about the BMA are concerned, I think he is simply adding to the case that I have made. The social partnership model is not about cosy relationships in which you always agree, but it is about being willing to go on sitting around a table with people who have different views to your own, and to be willing to engage seriously and attentively with the points they made and to be able to demonstrate to them that, where those points have a relevance, you are willing to act with them in order to solve it. I met the BMA every six weeks that I was health Minister. Those meetings were not always comfortable meetings, but the fact that they knew that they would always have a hearing and that I would always be willing to think carefully about what they had to say was the reason why, when junior doctors were on strike in England, the BMA proposed that its members here in Wales would keep working. The social partnership model is absolutely borne out by the point that he made.

I think any politician who complains about politicisation is to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. He started off by saying to me that this was a Bill that proceeded from the manifesto of a political party in England. If that isn’t politicising things, I don’t know what is.

I warmly welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement—indeed, restatement—of the Welsh Government’s commitment to the individual and collective rights of public sector employees in Wales. Let’s not forget that the restrictions that this Bill seeks to address were things that were too toxic even for that 1980s Conservative Government, which was uniquely hostile to trade unions, to touch. It’s as well for us to bear that in mind.

I’d like to touch on one of the less prominent parts, which has been touched on already, which is the question of the deduction of union subs from wage packets. It’s a straightforward and accessible means for individual members to keep up with their union subs. Contrary to the implication, I think, in Suzy Davies’s question, it is usually the case that unions pay the employer a percentage of those in order exactly to cover the costs, so that there isn’t a cost to the public purse of providing that service.

It strikes me that we have Conservatives in Westminster, and on the benches opposite who support them, who are accustomed to having money deducted for their pensions and for their gym memberships and their cycle-to-work schemes and so on, but are resisting this for individual employees in Wales, which indicates that it’s a naked attempt to restrict the democratic rights of individuals to join and become members of a trade union.

So, will he take this opportunity, in contrast to the UK Government, to restate the Welsh Government’s position that it would want to see as many public sector employees as possible being active members of trade unions?

I absolutely agree with Jeremy Miles. What we want to see are trade union members who take an active part in the work of their union and express their daily dedication to the public services that they provide, by making that participation part of that contribution. I agree with the point he made in the beginning as well. The 2016 trade union Act reforms the 1992 Act, which was good enough for 13 years of Conservative Governments. And I’d make the point again: it’s not this Welsh Government that is seeking to change the status quo here; we simply want things that have worked successfully to go on working successfully. The change comes from those who have a very different sort of agenda.

When New Labour’s hero, Tony Blair, said he regretted bringing in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, he didn’t mean because it didn’t go far enough; he meant it had given people access to information that he wished he hadn’t granted them. Tony Blair may have left office, but Welsh Labour are carrying on where he left off as far as hoping to keep information away from the public is concerned.

Their proposal to reject legislation requiring public bodies to disclose to the public how much time public sector employees are spending on union activities is a blatant attempt to hide information Labour feels the public will dislike. Labour must know that the information would cause outrage among the taxpayers of Wales, otherwise there would be no reason to withhold it. Were people to ask how much money and time is being spent on any other activity undertaken by public sector employees, denying the public the answers would not be tolerated. If this legislation proceeds, I think I would be justified in filing and FOI request every week, asking how much time has been spent on union activity, and to let the public know myself.

I also share the public’s view that strike ballots should be subject to at least a minimum level of approval by union members. I am concerned for workers’ rights and it’s important to remember that unions have done a huge amount to improve workers’ conditions and wages. But it seems reasonable that there should be a minimum threshold for support by members before industrial action can take place. To those who claim that the new rules would obstruct unions from representing their members, I would say this: if you can’t get enough support from your members for strike action, you clearly are not representing their views. If the strike ballot fails to reach that level of support, it will be no-one’s fault but the unions’. The public seem to support a minimum threshold for strike action, and Labour’s objection to it can only be because they value their union donors more than they value transparency and what the public want. Labour needs to remember that the public sector is there to serve the taxpayer, not the other way around. Thank you.

Llywydd, I think Members across the Chamber have dealt with the threshold issue very successfully, this afternoon. The Member herself would not be here if she subjected herself to the argument that she’s so keen to subject others to. As to her first point about information, I hope I can help her there: I could let her know that 2.2 per cent of private sector workplaces have a full-time trade union representative; 2.8 per cent of public sector workplaces have a full-time representative; 84 per cent of employers agreed with the proposition that having such a representative was helpful to them in the conduct of their work. That information, far from being secret or kept away from the public, is to be found published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Member is welcome to pursue that source for more information of the sort she seems so keen to obtain.

Well, it’s been an enlightening debate and there’ve been a few bits of enlightenment that have come to the fore. The first thing that has very much come to the fore is the lie that UKIP is the party of the working class, because all they have done today is talk against the opportunities that we are trying put in place for hard-working people. Whilst we’re on this phrase of ‘hard-working people’—taxpayers and others—I would challenge some of the statements that have been made today about trade union representatives coming somehow to earth out of dark corners, who are clearly not taxpayers, who are clearly not parents, who are clearly not people who represent their communities or the organisations that they work for, which have clearly been put forward by Janet Finch-Saunders, the leader of the Tory party and everybody else from that side of the Chamber today. I don’t know why it is that the Tories do not understand that their one trick doesn’t work anymore. This is their single one trick: that if you put the workers against the bosses, if you put the rich against the poor and if you put forward those people who need representation and those who people who try to do it in different camps, it doesn’t work.

So, we had the disgrace yesterday of comparing those people who are trying to represent other people, by the leader of the Tory party, as somehow less deserving than others. I just want to set the record straight here today. I want to set the record straight because the Wales TUC has developed a network of equality reps, and that was introduced in 2012 by the Welsh Government. The reason why that was introduced—that these trade union reps were introduced—was because they could be trained on how to support people most at risk of discrimination within the workplace. So, who would those people be? They will be people who have autism. They will be people who have learning disabilities. They will be people who need a voice when there is no other voice available to them. That is why we want to give time for those union reps to be able to make that representation. Just forget your one trick because it doesn’t work. Let’s call it out for what it is. I’m sure some of you here are members of trade unions. I’ll bet you are. I’ll bet there are plenty of Members over there who are members of trade unions.

Are you addressing the Cabinet Secretary or a political party? You do need to address questions to the Cabinet Secretary.

I’m actually going to say that what this Act—. What we’re trying to do against this Act is prevent us, the workers in Wales, from being compared by the International Labour Organization committee to an Act put in place that is the most draconian since Thatcher and that has put us now in the spotlight with Qatar, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and others. That’s exactly where your Act is. It is shameful, it is disgraceful, and so are some of the comments that I’ve heard today. And that is why I want to call them out. That is why I want to call out the lie about those people who will not—

Joyce Watson, you do need to bring your comments to a close now and ask questions of the Cabinet Secretary.

So, I want to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, if you believe that this Bill will help to reduce the conflict that we’ve heard about today, and encourage resolution of that conflict in the public sector workforce?

Llywydd, the Member has very skilfully drawn attention to the wider social partnership agenda that having trade unions able to discharge their responsibilities brings to Wales. We’ve concentrated in this statement on the conduct of direct industrial relations, but social partnership is much more than that. No progressive ground has ever been gained without a struggle, whether that is in equality matters, whether it’s in discrimination matters, or whether it is here in Wales through the action that we have taken on blacklisting in the construction sector, whether it’s securing a living wage in the NHS in Wales, or whether it’s producing a refreshed two-tier workforce code for Wales, when it’s been abandoned across our border. The social partnership model goes beyond the micro conduct of industrial relations to that far wider canvas of progressive causes here in Wales. I agree absolutely with her final point that those gains are much more likely to take place when you have constructive relationships and when you are able to get round the table together. This Bill is designed to protect that position in Wales, and to protect us from the conflictual model that is inherent in the Act that is currently on the statute book.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.