We got more than you. [Laughter.]

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

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