National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question, Huw Irranca-Davies.

I thank the Member for that question. As I understand it, the British Influence think tank has sought permission for a judicial review in relation to the applicability of the European Economic Area Agreement to the UK, in relation to Brexit. It is not clear whether permission will be granted, but I understand that an oral hearing for ‘leave’ is now listed to take place in February, which is, in fact, after the Supreme Court judgment in the Article 50 case is likely to have been received.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer. And, of course, he’s drawn our attention as well to recent issues, including the recent application for a judicial review. So, could I ask, in light of that, and his answer, what steps the Welsh Government is taking to protect the interests of the people of Wales, bearing in mind indications from the Prime Minister that failing to secure access to the single market, or continued membership of the customs union, are not barriers to triggering article 50?

Well, the first thing to say is that the new case that’s being brought under article 127 does relate to an important area where the UK is a signatory to an important treaty. It’s worth looking at the specific legal arguments that have been put, as we understand it, in that particular case. What they are saying is that membership of the European Union is a gateway to join the EEA but is not a precondition to continued membership. They say that the UK is a contracting party to the EEA in its own right, and must itself trigger article 127 of the agreement, in order to leave the EEA, which is a voluntary act and not an obligation upon leaving the EU, and that article 127 implicitly excludes other means of leaving the EEA, such as leaving the European Union. And, whilst there are currently two pillars for EEA membership—the EU pillar and the EEA pillar—there is nothing to prevent further pillars being established bilaterally. So, those are the arguments that are being made.

Article 127 of the agreement basically states that each party may withdraw from the agreement, provided it gives at least 12 months’ notice to the other contracting parties. And the UK is, of course, a party to the EEA agreement, and the agreement is also one of the EU treaties that is woven into the fabric of our constitutional settlement by the Government of Wales Act 2006. So, if the case is to go forward, via this litigation, the UK Government is being asked to clarify its position on withdrawal from the EEA under article 127. So, we look forward to seeing what the UK Government actually have to say about that.

And, as has been stated publicly by the First Minister and the Welsh Government, we’re committed to ensuring that there is full and unfettered access to the single market, and we are open to exploring all other options to achieve that aim. The interest, as has been explained, is quite clear: we have 20,000 workers in the automotive industry who are dependent on being able to export to the EU, and 7,000 steel jobs and many thousands of agricultural workers’ jobs that are dependent very much on access to that market. So, within that context, the EEA model, which gives three of the four European Free Trade Association states access to the EU single market, is something that really does need to be looked at very, very closely.

So, in principle, a need to withdraw formally from the EEA could raise similar issues to that which have been raised in the Miller case, on which we’re waiting the judgment, obviously, from the Supreme Court imminently. We are exploring these issues. It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment further at this stage, but, as I’ve said, the Welsh Government is clear that having full and unfettered access to the EU single market is good for goods, services and capital, and it’s a top priority, in order to protect jobs and the Welsh economy. So, it is vital that businesses in Wales are not disadvantaged through unnecessary trade barriers, quotas, or technical barriers to trade. So, it is a situation that we are monitoring very, very closely, and much may be determined by the content of the imminent Supreme Court judgment.

Remaining in the EEA would allow the EU to continue making our trading laws, and require the free movement of people, which the majority of your constituents voted against. If a legislative consent motion comes before this place, will you vote with your constituents or with Jeremy Corbyn?

My constituency, of course, is Pontypridd, and the majority of the constituents in Pontypridd constituency actually voted to remain, so I suggest you’re asking me to take action for ‘remain’. [Laughter.] But what I would actually say is that my role here is that of Counsel General, which is as adviser to the Welsh Government and to protect the constitutional interests of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government.

Members will know that my advice is legally privileged, but I place a great value on the use of enforcement powers to make legislation effective. You will be aware of the prosecution work being undertaken by me to protect both marine natural resources and the integrity of food produce in Wales through the enforcement of Welsh law.

A constituent of mine is an ecologist and previously contacted me expressing his concerns about the enforcement of Welsh legislation underpinned by the EU habitats directive once we leave the European Union. This is one example and the Counsel General’s given an example. He’s previously given an assessment of the general effect of triggering article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon on Welsh Government legislation. Would he specifically comment on the implications that European Union withdrawal will have for Welsh laws?

The answer is yes, there will certainly be—. One of the areas I’m concerned about is ensuring that, whatever changes and lacunas that occur in respect of Welsh law, nevertheless, we are able to adequately and properly enforce our laws and those areas within our jurisdiction. So, to that extent, you’ll be aware of the statements that I’ve made in respect of the fisheries prosecutions and the various food prosecutions that have been taking place.

You raise a very valid point, and it was a point that we raised within the Supreme Court in terms of those areas where, suddenly, there will be significant gaps in laws that have to be replaced. The number of laws and regulations are, in fact, significant. In fact, we expect there to be, in the environmental area in terms of regulations, some 5,200, and many of those, on leaving the EU, will suddenly become gaps in legislation. That is why there is such a major task and why the UK Government is having to take on so many new lawyers and administrators to actually deal with all these complex issues.

As far as the law is concerned, what is already transposed into Welsh law will remain in Welsh law and will be a matter for the Welsh Government and, of course, the Assembly to decide what laws should then remain. Where Welsh or UK law gives effect to an EU law, many aspects of that EU law may be ones that Wales representatives, UK representatives and the UK Government and so on, will have actually promoted and wanted. So, if these are EU laws that we have supported, we may want to see them retained, and where EU law applies directly in Wales, and therefore has not been transposed into Welsh or UK law, the Welsh Government and the Assembly will need to consider if the policy underpinning that EU law represents the best way forward for Wales and what changes should be made to the law in Wales to bring that about.

Eluned Morgan is not in the Chamber to ask question 3. Question 4, Jeremy Miles.

The Welsh Government has continued to make representations to the UK Government about the adverse impacts of court closures on access to justice, which, for many people, will mean longer and more expensive journeys to attend court and much more limited access to justice.

In my constituency of Neath, we’ve now lost the magistrates’ court and the county court. In the case of the magistrates’ court, that involves people travelling to Swansea. A population of 140,000, previously served by that court, which is about the size of the city of Cambridge, no longer has local provision. I have constituents who have missed court opportunities by trying to combine medical visits with being at court and relying on a bus service. So, there are very profound social justice implications, as the Counsel General has indicated. What response has he had to those concerns around social justice when he’s raised these representations with the UK Government?

I’m well aware of the Member’s interests in this area. Neath magistrates’ court closed in May 2014, with work transferred to Swansea. The Neath and Port Talbot civil and family court closed in July 2016, with business transferred to the Port Talbot justice centre. In addition, in mid and west Wales, courts have recently closed in Carmarthen Guildhall, Brecon law courts and Bridgend law courts and, of course, the impact in rural areas is particularly significant, significantly increasing journey times to court.

Court closures, of course, are only part of a wider Ministry of Justice programme of cuts, including reduced access to legal aid, raising revenue, including increased court fees. Taken together, these changes are having a significant impact on access to justice for vulnerable people and communities. It’s worth saying that, overall, there has been a substantial number of reductions in the number of courts in England and Wales since 2010. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service closed 146 courts between 2010 and 2015. An additional 86 courts in England and Wales are now being closed. Of the 42 court and tribunal buildings remaining in Wales, after previous closure programmes, nine have already been closed under the current programme, and a further court, in Llangefni, is due to be closed.

So, we have made representations. We continue to make those representations. Unfortunately, those representations appear to fall on deaf ears. This isn’t an area that is, of course, devolved. If it were devolved, I think the Welsh Labour Government would be going in a very different direction.

Following on from the comments of the Assembly Member for Neath, as a former justice of the peace, I know that the closure of Abergavenny court, in my area, makes it almost impossible for defendants to attend the two remaining courts at Cwmbran and Newport, given that many will have to use public transport. Do you know whether these factors were taken into account, and was your predecessor able to have any input into these decisions?

Well, of course, there was a consultation, but the point you make is exactly right, and was exactly the same issue as in my own constituency of Pontypridd, when that court closed. Where detailed representations were made, as they were in respect of Cwmbran and Abergavenny, showing that the basis on which the decisions were being taken, in terms of access to courts, was actually substantially flawed—that it was actually almost impossible to achieve the access to other courts on the basis that was being suggested. From all I can see, that has been totally disregarded.

My apologies—I wonder if you could ask me that again. [Laughter.]

Diolch. Now that you’re plugged in, Counsel General.

The case we put to the Supreme Court at the hearing on 8 December is that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise the UK Government to serve notice under article 50. Such a fundamental change to the devolution settlement can only be made by Parliament and must not be allowed to bypass the Sewel convention. As the Member is probably aware, judgment is expected imminently.

I thank the Counsel General for that response. I was hoping that the judgment would have been made by the time I asked this question, but may I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has spent £84,000 to protect the interests of this place and democracy in Wales? I think it was worth every penny. I compare that expenditure with the expenditure by the Westminster Government to challenge Assembly legislation in the past, specifically the agricultural wages Bill—the expenditure of one Government is acceptable while that of another Government is not. For me, it’s more than acceptable that the Counsel General has approved this expenditure. Without the expenditure and without this case, and without being part of the case in the Supreme Court, I doubt whether we would have got the wording that we had in the statement and speech made by the Prime Minister, Theresa May, yesterday, when she made it clear that consultation was required with the Welsh Parliament and Government before we proceed with the process of leaving the European Union. So, I do think that this place has been protected in this case.

Now, assuming that there will be a court case, and that the Westminster Government believes that the court’s decision will go against them, what practical steps does the Counsel General consider to be appropriate for this Parliament to take as we proceed and respond to the triggering of article 50?

Well, could I firstly thank the Member for his comments? I perhaps differ from him to some extent because it is absolutely awful that we’ve had to spend £84,000 on the case. It was absolutely right that we were in court in the most important constitutional case for 300 years, but I think it was totally wrong that the UK Government, on an issue of establishing a royal prerogative to bypass Parliament, should have actually appealed the High Court decision and actually incurred not only the cost that we had to incur, but also the cost that had to be incurred then by Northern Ireland and by Scotland. And, of course, no wonder the UK Government, six times, has refused to disclose the considerable amount that it has probably expended as well. But in terms of our position, I believe that we were absolutely right: we would have let the people of Wales down if we had not had a Welsh voice.

In terms of the importance of what may happen, if the judgment upholds the High Court decision, which requires legislation, what that does then—it gives an opportunity for further engagement through Sewel, engagement with the Parliamentary process, which is what Sewel establishes, and we can look, within our working practice, at achieving an objective that whatever legislation is brought forward to trigger article 50, it also includes within it a duty of engagement and consultation with devolved, and I would even say regional Government, to ensure that there is a proper voice of the people in the actual deals that are being done that will affect people’s jobs and lives, and the investment in our country.

The Counsel General, and, indeed, the Welsh Government in general, consistently say that they respect the judgment of the Welsh people in voting to leave the European Union on 23 June last year in the referendum. Will he accept that the purported use of the royal prerogative to trigger article 50 in this case is qualitatively different from all previous exercises of the royal prerogative because this is in pursuance of the decision of the British people in that referendum, and therefore, triggering article 50 would be to fulfil the express wish of the British people rather than to frustrate it, and any attempt by the Welsh Government to stand in the way of the judgment of the Welsh people is to be deprecated?

Well, the fundamental point that the Member just does not get, does not understand, no matter in how much detail it was explained in the Supreme Court, is that the argument is that there is no royal prerogative to replace laws and to undermine the role of Parliament. That was the whole point. There is no royal prerogative. If it ever existed, it was abolished by the bill of rights and by a series of decisions in the courts. That was the fundamental point. The Government could not rely on a prerogative that just did not exist. Parliament is sovereign. We operate under a system of sovereign parliamentary democracy. That was the fundamental point. The unfortunate point is that the Member seems to want to play fast and loose with the rule of law. And where that has happened in the past in other countries, it has led to an undermining of the rule of law. It is a very dangerous road to go down.

Well, Members, and the Member in particular, will know that this answer is subject to the established law officers’ convention. The Wales Bill today will be receiving its third reading in the House of Lords.

Thank you, Counsel General. Of course, I was expecting that kind of answer. One of the things that we discussed yesterday in approving the LCM, even by those who voted in favour of that motion, was the concern about the use of the words—in English, because the Bill is only in English—’relates to’, and that that could be a means of restricting the devolution that’s taken place in the past. On the other hand, there were many here, particularly on the Conservative benches, who stated that sufficient clarity had been provided by Ministers of the Crown in Westminster to demonstrate that this wasn’t going to be used to restrict or limit democracy. So, insofar as you can give advice or comments in this Chamber, I’d like to know whether you’re of the view that the Bill has now found the right balance between the reserved-powers model and the fact that Ministers of the Crown still have this right to intervene in relation to the ‘relates to’ test?

Well, the answer to that is the Bill is unsatisfactory and inadequate for many reasons, most of which were explored and set out in detail yesterday by yourself, by the First Minister and by many others. What was obtained, again through hard negotiation, was a narrative that explains that that was not the intention of using the ‘relates to’, to actually undermine the devolution process and devolution legislation. That is some assistance insofar as it is there—it is in writing. But again, as with many of these things, it is going to be a question of trust and goodwill, and we will find out when legislation goes forward whether that is honoured. I would expect it to be honoured. I think it was made with good intent and goodwill, but we have to work on the basis in the future that that will continue. If it doesn’t it will result in more matters themselves going into the Supreme Court.

The point the Member made yesterday, though, was a very important one, and that is that Sewel will go onto the statute book. That is fundamentally important. In itself, it doesn’t create necessarily a veto at this stage, but what it does mean is that it can’t be removed. It is there. It establishes in law a convention, and over a period of time that convention becomes a fundamental part of the constitution. So, the issue of justiciability will remain in terms of what normally can and can’t be done. These will be issues, I think, that will become part of our constitutional debate in the future. So, it is a step forward. As in many things, sometimes there is one step forward, two steps backwards. This I think actually is a step forward in some areas, it’s a step backwards in some areas, but overall a decision had to be taken yesterday and we’re aware of the decision. We now know where we are in respect to the Wales Bill, but there will be challenges and there will be difficulties.

Thank you, Counsel General.

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.

The next item on our agenda is the 90-second statements. Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Lywydd. Yesterday, in one of his final acts as a fine President of the United States, Barack Obama commuted the prison sentence of Chelsea Manning. This action will be welcomed by many in Wales. Though a US citizen, Chelsea Manning was educated, as Bradley Manning, in Tasker Milward School, Haverfordwest. A school friend there described her as unique, extremely unique, very quirky, very opinionated, very political, very clever, very articulate. In 2010, as a serving US army officer, Chelsea Manning released an enormous amount of secret data to Wikileaks and ‘The Guardian’ newspaper. Her leaks revealed the scale and depth of human rights abuses in the middle east following military intervention. Chelsea Manning did not flee justice but faced the consequences of her actions and stood trial. During this process she also began to identify as a woman. Her penalty has been severe: a 35-year military prison sentence, to be served as a woman in a male military prison. She has had long periods of solitary confinement. The response of the authorities to a suicide attempt was another period of solitary confinement. She has suffered enormously and disproportionately for her offence. After all, the US now has a President-elect who publicly calls for the illegal hacking of democratic institutions. President Obama has extended compassion to Chelsea Manning, and in doing so has upheld values that I, and I hope the Assembly, hold dear.

Suzy Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. AEDs, or automated emergency defibrillators, are thankfully becoming more and more commonplace within Wales, and Members I’m sure will be as dismayed as I was to hear that two defibrillators provided by charities and local fundraisers in my region were vandalised recently. AEDs are designed to be easily used when help is needed, particularly when somebody has suffered a heart attack. The intention is for people without any medical training to use them, and they only give out an electrical pulse once they detect an irregular or no heartbeat. After a cardiac arrest, survival chances drop by 14 per cent for every minute that passes without treatment, so being able to administer treatment as soon as possible is key, and these defibrillators are used very effectively during that period of time when the emergency services proper are arriving. The British Heart Foundation and Welsh Hearts are just two charities working to install more of these devices throughout Wales and to increase awareness. And to date, Welsh Hearts have installed 482 defibrillators in community centres, shops and even old phone boxes.

While those examples of vandalism that I mentioned earlier are not the norm, they have helped to highlight how our communities are backing these accessible defibrillators. The support offered from local groups to raise money for the repairs, particularly on one of these boxes, has been absolutely fantastic—in Mumbles. The provision of defibrillators and of the training of basic emergency lifesaving skills are just two examples of how community groups, charities, businesses and the Welsh ambulance service can work together to save lives. I hope that, during the course of this Assembly, support for defibrillators and emergency lifesaving skills will become even more strong. Thank you.

Jayne Bryant.

Tomorrow is the last day of President Obama’s term in the White House. In 2014, he visited my constituency for the NATO summit at the Celtic Manor. Stephen Bowen, a school governor and Rogerstone community councillor, wrote a compelling letter to President Obama with an offer he couldn’t turn down: a visit to Mount Pleasant Primary School. The presidential car, fitted with US and Welsh flags, was a real sight to see. He welcomed pupils with ‘Bore da’, sat in on a lesson, talked, laughed and joked with the children, and gave them an opportunity to ask questions. For those children, along with the many hundreds who had gathered outside, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, never to be forgotten.

After the visit, US Ambassador Matthew Barzun said:

The warmth of your welcome not only demonstrated the best of Welsh hospitality, it was a testament to your great community spirit. It is exciting that it left a mark in the minds of the next generation.’

I understand that the President’s only regret was that he did not have the chance to play a round of golf at the Celtic Manor.

The President has left a great legacy: the introduction of Obamacare, progress in preventing climate change, the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and much more. All the while, he led with integrity, warmth and complete faith in the good of people. I’m sure the Chamber will join me in wishing him and his family the very best for the future. And he’s always welcome back in Newport for that round of golf at the Celtic Manor.

The next item on our agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on Tata Steel, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion. Adam Price.

Diolch, Lywydd. I rise to speak for steel once again in this Chamber—for steelworkers, for steel pensioners, for steel communities, for a sector that is the very foundational core of our economy. There are those who perhaps would prefer it if I were silent, but I’ve been told to shut up by Labour councillors ever since I was a boy in the miners welfare hall in Ammanford. And I didn’t take their advice then and I’m not going to start at this point either.

And really, actually, it’s partly because of that boyhood experience then—going through the anguish as a family facing the tribulation of redundancy and unemployment and everything that that represented and, indeed, a stolen pension scheme, by the way—it’s for that reason that I think we cannot remain silent. I remember meeting for the first time John Benson and his colleagues from Allied Steel and Wire in the building next door, 15 years ago—people who had lost their job and their pension, and 15 years later, they’re still fighting—still fighting—for justice that was denied them. When I think about people like John, what he looks for, I think, and what working people look for in political leaders, is leadership, actually being a voice for the voiceless, saying the things that are unsaid, asking the unanswered questions, even when it’s uncomfortable, and also being there to articulate what they’re unable to speak openly themselves.

I would particularly like to thank those steelworkers, past and present, who have reached out to us to thank us for saying, on the record, what many of them privately feel. The question I think that is at the forefront of our minds at the moment in relation to Tata’s proposals is twofold: one, does it provide a sustainable, viable future for the steel industry in Wales going forward? And secondly, is it fair to all stakeholders, including, of course, steelworkers and steel pensioners? And we, certainly on these benches, have very real concerns, which I think are shared by many in the workforce, and it’s that that I will seek to address in my comments here this afternoon. I’ll cover the three main areas covered in the proposal—employment, investment and pension—and then say something about the deal overall and, crucially, what can be done. That’s the focus, really, surely, for us in the place: what can be done to improve this situation.

Now, as far as employment is concerned, the proposal, as has been reported in the public domain—I’m reliant on that information, and the information that I’ve garnered in speaking to steelworkers myself—states that there is the commitment to seek to avoid redundancies over a five-year period. The problem, of course, is immediately apparent: ‘seek to avoid’ actually is no clear concrete commitment at all. I’ve written a few manifestos in my time—I know this kind of language. It’s not a bankable promise, unfortunately, as it currently stands.

Now, the employment pact mechanism actually emerges from continental Europe—it’s been in place in Tata Steel in the Netherlands; in fact, it goes back to the days of Corus in 1999. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the new employment pact that has just recently been agreed for Tata Steel Netherlands for the next five-year period. But there are some detailed commitments there that have been reported, for example a 21-month retraining and redeployment right for all workers effected by restructuring. So, again, we see, certainly, a greater level of commitment in terms of the detail in that employment pact. The reason why the employment guarantee is crucial is because we know that there is an intention to move forward with a merger with ThyssenKrupp. Indeed, the chief executive officer of ThyssenKrupp, Heinrich Hiesinger, has said recently that those discussions are ongoing. And he is on the record as saying there’s only one reason, of course, for that merger, and that’s to take out capacity. What does capacity mean? That means jobs. Who is going to be on the front line of those cuts? Well, I’ll give you a clue: I don’t think it’s going to be ThyssenKrupp. I don’t think it’s going to be Tata Steel Netherlands. So, you can fill in the blanks. And, unfortunately, as currently constituted, that employment guarantee does not give us, and certainly doesn’t give the steelworkers, I think, the kind of confidence that they deserve.

Similarly on the investment plan: £1 billion over a 10-year period—by the way, that actually really only allows us to maintain the current level of capital investment. That’s not a transformational level of investment. That just allows us to keep the steelworks going at the current rate of efficiency. But, again, it’s contingent, we’re told, upon gross profits, an EBITDA, of £200 million a year from Tata Steel UK—I’ll give way to the honourable Member.

I thank the Member for giving way. Just for clarification purposes, the EBITDA actually is not gross profits—it’s operational costs profits, in the sense that it’s the net profits plus the interest, plus the taxation, plus the depreciation, plus amortisation. So, it’s not actually gross profit, is it?

Well, it’s operating profit. You could regard it as—. I mean, it doesn’t actually have a formal definition in that sense. But the point is, if that really is a hard contingency—that this investment plan is completely reliant upon that level of continual operating profit, in a context in which we know—. This is one of the most cyclical industries of all—. Let’s remember we’ve gone from a position where we were told at one point that Port Talbot was losing £1 million a day to a position now where it’s making a profit. And yet we have an investment plan that is contingent upon an annualised level of net earnings—call it what you will—it’s contingent upon a very, very exacting level of performance. I’m sure the honourable Member wouldn’t disagree with that. The investment plan should be based on a concrete commitment, because that’s the only long-term basis, actually, on which we can create the kind of framework of trust that is necessary on both sides to achieve the sustainable, successful future that we want to see. Are we saying, for example, that if they don’t meet that target, the investment doesn’t go in? You’re in a vicious circle then, aren’t you? Because if the investment goes in, you’re not going to make those targets in the second year as well.

Let’s turn finally to the proposal on the pension. This I find most curious of all. I struggle to understand what really is driving this, because the formal consultation is about moving the remaining members of the British Steel pension scheme among the employees—it’s closed to new entrants already, of course—over to a defined contribution scheme. But it isn’t about lowering the cost of pension contributions to the current workforce, is it? Because it merely cuts Tata Steel’s contribution from 11.5 per cent of salary to 10 per cent, so it has a negligible effect on their costs. It isn’t even about closing the current pension deficit, because we’re told it’s fallen; in the last actuarial valuation, it’s down to £50 million. So, it’s not about that.

So, what is it really about? Well, I think we’re forced to come to the conclusion what it’s really about is removing the charge that the British Steel pension scheme currently has over the IJmuiden plant, which Tata Steel, globally, have always seen as the jewel in the crown. That is a major impediment to their desire, of course, to move forward with the ThyssenKrupp merger that I have already referred to. That’s what, it seems to me, it is all about, to move forward with that plan, which is not necessarily, I would humbly suggest, in the interests of the Welsh and British steel industry. That charge—there’s no actuarial valuation that I can find in the British Steel pension fund documentation of that security that they have over the IJmuiden plant, but we’ve got a clue, I think, from the Government actuarial department analysis that said that if Tata Steel was to delink itself from the pension scheme so that it actually became, effectively, self-sufficient, you’d have to put about £3 billion or £4 billion in, not the couple of hundred million that has been reported in the press that Tata are offering in order to remove the connection with the pension fund.

These are very real concerns. They can be addressed. This deal can be strengthened. The employment guarantee can be made a firm guarantee. The investment plan can be made a concrete commitment, and we can have a clear commitment that Tata, the conglomerate, a profitable conglomerate—it makes 12.5 per cent return on capital overall and it makes billions of pounds of profit—actually will not walk away from its liabilities to the pension fund. These are reasonable demands that I hope Tata, as it is currently consulting, will listen to so that we can have the kind of trust and the kind of confidence that is the sure platform that we all need to see for a viable, sustainable and fair future for the steel industry.

Thank you very much. I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. So, I’ll call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Formally. Thank you. I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 2 tabled in her own name. Caroline.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. It is UKIP’s belief that we should not be debating this motion before us today. I will simply outline our position. On 16 February, workers at Port Talbot will make one of the most important decisions about the future of steel production in Wales. The unions have worked hard and negotiated the best possible outcome for employees. It is a decision that employees alone have to make, and we should not be trying to influence that process. Half a year ago, Tata employees were facing the prospect of losing their jobs. They are now being asked to make changes to their pension arrangements in exchange for significant reinvestment in the steelworks at Port Talbot—

Will you take an intervention?

Not at the moment, Suzy, thanks. We all want to see Port Talbot steelworks survive and thrive, but our job as politicians is not to dictate to workers what the best deal is for them. It doesn’t matter if anyone thinks it’s a good deal or a bad deal in our situation; the only opinions that count in this matter are those of the workforce and their families. They are negotiating on all of the information; they’re talking to their work mates; they’re talking for advice from the unions, and it’s not up to us to influence their decisions. Our job, as politicians, is to step back, allow the workers to make an informed choice on the information given and what is best for them and their families, and then to be ready to ensure that, whatever the outcome of the ballot, we do all that we can to secure the long-term future of steel production in Wales.

I urge Plaid Cymru to stop trying to influence the opinions of the workforce and, instead, focus on trying to persuade the world to buy the best steel in the world, which is Welsh steel. They could start with their friends in Scotland, who decided to buy cheap Chinese steel for the Forth road bridge rather than top-quality Welsh steel.

Would the Member give way?

No. But then we all know that being a nationalist doesn’t practice always what they preach. They care about political expedience. I urge Members—

Seeing as you’re attacking me, would you give way?

No, thank you. I urge Members to reject Plaid Cymru’s motion today and support one of the amendments.

UKIP, Welsh Labour and the Welsh Conservatives are united in the belief that we should not be interfering with a democratic consultation between Tata and its workforce. It is in this spirit—[Interruption.] It is in this spirit that I will not be—[Interruption.]

Yes, okay. Can we just listen?

It is in this spirit that I will not be proceeding with amendment 2, tabled in my name. Instead, UKIP will be supporting the amendment put forward by the Welsh Government, and I urge Members to do likewise.

Thank you. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to move amendment 3 in the name of Paul Davies, in what is a very challenging time, to say the least at the moment, and a sensitive time as well. It was only this time last year that, obviously, this Chamber was reflecting on the news of the first tranche of announcements around redundancies at the Port Talbot site—and the other sites, obviously. Let’s not forget, it’s not just Port Talbot. There’s Trostre, there’s Llanwern, there’s Shotton in the north, many ancillary industries as well that depend on those sites to work, and many off-site sub-contractors who depend on those sites remaining open. It is with that in mind that, obviously, we have put forward the amendment today to today’s motion. I do think it is not right at all to say that the UK Government hasn’t been proactively working, along with the Welsh Government, along with the steel sector, to try and carve out a future for the steel industry here, not just in Wales but across the UK. The improvements made in public procurement, for example, the improvements over energy pricing, which will see £400 million returned to high energy users over the lifetime of this Parliament—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

I thank you for taking the intervention. Are you therefore disappointed, as I am, that the UK Government dawdled over the application to the EU for state aid in relation to the extension of the intensive energy industries? But are you also disappointed that the UK Government has actually rejected an application to come down to us to talk to Members in the cross-party group on steel on the issues and whether the UK Government is actually dealing with them? Because, from what I’m seeing, they’re doing nothing.

Well, I reject that rather bleak assessment. I appreciate why you’re making that assessment, David—

It’s true.

[Continues.]—because, obviously, you represent Aberavon and you’re a Labour Member in this Assembly. But it is worth reflecting that the Secretary of State for Wales is the son of a former steelworker with, I think, some 30 years’ service at the Port Talbot site, and is very proud. Very proud. [Interruption.] Well, if the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs would like to intervene as well, I’ll gladly sit down and listen to her as well, but I doubt whether I’d learn much. But the issue being is that we do have a Secretary of State for Wales who ultimately is fighting on behalf of the steel community that he himself hails from. The Prime Minister—. Both Prime Ministers have worked—

I’ll take the intervention in a minute, Lee, but let me make a little progress, if I may. They are both working on this tirelessly with the Government to make sure that there is a future, as has been committed to by the UK Government, for the British steel industry, which is identified as integral to the manufacturing strategy and the industrial strategy that Theresa May has put at the heart of UK Government policy. I’ll take the intervention.

Thank you very much for giving way. I hear what the Member says about the pride that Alun Cairns has in his steel-making heritage, but what has he delivered? When David Rees and John Griffiths and I met the chief exec of Tata Steel UK before Christmas, he was very clear: the Welsh Government had delivered, and had delivered practical help, and the UK Government so far have delivered nothing. His words, not mine.

Well, you keep talking about what the UK Government have delivered. I have highlighted the £400 million back to high energy users. I have talked about help and assistance from going to Europe and looking for tariffs to be placed on steel. But it’s not just as simple as placing tariffs on steel. You have to look at the whole strategy to make sure that another sector, such as airlines, for example, doesn’t get penalised as well. That has been part of a joined-up approach to making sure that the protection is put in place to stop the dumping of steel. There have been high-energy rebates put back into the steel sector, but I will make this point: I had this written question back from the First Minister only this week. I asked a relatively simple question after First Minister’s questions last week, because he was making the point that the Prime Minister does not seem to be doing anything. I made the point:

Will the First Minister confirm how many meetings have been requested with Theresa May since her appointment as Prime Minister relating specifically to developments with the Tata Steel crisis in Wales?’

The answer comes back:

The future of steel making by Tata in Wales has been secured largely through partnership between the Welsh Government and the management and staff at Tata Steel. We have also, of course, worked with the UK Government.’

I deduce from that: zero. I asked how many meetings he had requested. He hasn’t requested a single meeting—not a single meeting. That’s the First Minister of Wales. We had a joined-up, cross-party approach to actually supporting the steel sector here in Wales, and that worked very successfully, I would suggest, at the end of the last Assembly and at the beginning of this Assembly. We are at a very, very delicate time in the negotiations, and it is important that the workforce, as Caroline Jones highlighted, are allowed the space to debate, deliberate and actually digest the consequences of the deal that is on the table. I do not accept that it is not for us to debate and discuss this. I do believe that it is important for politicians because, ultimately, if the deal does not go through, politicians will be at the forefront of trying to work through an alternative or putting solutions in place. But it is wrong for politicians to actually scaremonger or put sensational stories out there. I am not saying I have seen that, I have to say; I haven’t seen that. But it can easily descend into that.

The point that we need to reflect on here is that the steel-making industry has been a volatile industry for decades. It was only this time last year that it was correct to point out that the plant at Port Talbot was losing £1 million a day. Ultimately, the currency changes have actually made it a far more competitive environment to sell that steel on the world market. But unless we secure that investment from Tata Steel, which is a global conglomerate—and it is only global conglomerates that can put that type of money into operations at Port Talbot, Shotton, Trostre and Llanwern—we will have a very bleak future.

So, I do hope the workforce are given the time and space to develop and debate the proposals before them and vote accordingly. I do hope the consensus that did exist both at this end of the M4 and at the other end of the M4 continues to develop the strategy to secure steel making here in the United Kingdom and that, above all, politicians do rise to the challenge as we go forward. Whatever the outcome of that deal, steel will remain a very volatile market as we go forward in the next decade.

Thank you very much. Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you. I have considered the arguments that some politicians have made, and others in the political sphere, that we should keep our noses out of this deal currently being offered by Tata to its workforce. I can see what they say, but then I was considering when it has ever been the case that politicians have not taken a view on such issues. Adam Price referred to miners’ pensions. ASW workers—Adam again mentioned John Benson, who was here in the Assembly today, lobbying people as they came in. Visteon, Tata. Politicians in Port Talbot were on the platform, if I recall, when we first had this debate over pensions, taking a view on the way forward. I think there is a moral obligation on us as politicians to lead in this regard, and to show that we have an opinion and a way forward. I am not saying that we should dictate to workers how they should vote, but I am saying that we need to be part of the discussion on how that process takes place. And I do believe—and I do firmly believe—that the trade unions have not taken on that responsibility. I am speaking to workers almost on a daily basis, who are saying, ‘I want them to tell me. I want them to take a view, so that I can have all the information to hand in a cohesive and constructive way. We go to the Tata Steel roadshows—that is good, the workforce needs to have that information from Tata Steel. But we need to therefore have guidance from the trade unions as to how we should vote’.

I think it’s not taking the responsibility that they should be taking, and they’re not representing their workers as they should be doing so. David Rees.

I thank the Member for allowing me an intervention. Do you accept the fact that—you talk about the roadshows—there are trade union representatives also at those roadshows, presenting information to the attendees as well? So, the trade unions are actually presenting information to members if they attend the roadshows as well.

Yes, they are, but they’re not taking a view on this deal, and I think they should be taking a view. If they think that it’s the right deal to take, then they should be saying that, and I haven’t heard them going that far.

Generally, I’ve found the steelworkers I’ve spoken to divided into two camps. It isn’t ageist to say that the older staff are more entrenched, more likely to vote ‘no’ to any proposal that closes the BSPS—and who can blame them? Since the 1980s, successive Governments have sought to redefine pensions as benefits. This painfully remains the case with former workers from ASW. Pensions are wages deferred—that is a fact. The workforce should have the right, then, to have that pension when they do retire.

The company, I think, can count its lucky stars that it’s been given such an easy ride in the media. Those much-advertised losses, it transpires, were against plan—what the company hoped to earn—not real losses. We’ve also seen, as Adam mentioned earlier, the pension scheme deficit go up and down, like a pleasure cruiser on hurricane-lashed high seas. It’s been £2.5 billion, £2 billion, £700 million, £480 million, and, most recently, £50 million. And now I’m reading it’s heading back to £2 billion. The reasons given are many and varied, but here’s what I don’t understand: if Tata is so exercised about the BSPS, then why is it running into the arms of ThyssenKrupp, whose €9.7 billion pension fund was two thirds wholly underfunded six months ago? Maybe it will make the same kind of miraculous recovery we saw with the BSPS.

The younger steelworkers, I know, are more concerned with how the commitments, not guarantees, will actually work out—whether they will have a working life in steel. To that end, there are all kinds of questions about the promised £1 billion investment. Again, this comes with strings attached. [Interruption.] I don’t have time, sorry, David.

Reading between what Tata and the multi-union have said, not only will the current UK operation fund this investment, but it is dependent upon UK sites making twice that amount each year. The figure of £200 million a year is a target in the transformation plan that began with over 1,000 job losses at the start of this year. Although this proposal was examined and endorsed by consultants for the union, it remains a big ask in a global market where overcapacity and cheap imports remain abiding problems, regardless of energy cost reductions.

I’ve mentioned the Tata roadshows, and I’ve mentioned the fact that many people still cannot make their minds up in relation to how they should go on this particular deal. I’ll finish with a quote that I’ve had from one of those steelworkers. He says, ‘I’ve given the works over 30 years of my working life. In that time, I’ve seen a lot of change, and a lot of good boys come and go. I remember British Steel, Corus, and now Tata. In that time, we’ve got better and better at making steel, smashing production records, one after the other, and the plant we’ve got gets older and older. I’m a steel man; I make steel. I like to think I’m good at it. I’d want my union to be good at looking out for me. I pay them for that; instead, silence. I’m going home and my wife is asking me, “Well, what does all this mean?”, and I don’t know. I’m clever enough to know that, when you smash production records and your employer responds by making job cuts and threatening closure, any deal he puts on the table needs a close look. All I want to know is: who will help us? We’re used to politicians ignoring us; now it seems our own trade unions are doing the same. We need their help.’

Let us be clear what we’re facing here: we are facing economic blackmail by a multinational company playing off Governments and workers to try and minimise its costs and maximise its profits. I well remember the closure of Ebbw Vale, and the then chair of Corus, Brian Moffat, telling the House of Commons Welsh Select Committee that his company was in the business of making money, not making steel. The workers across Wales have been through a series of crises, and they have understandable anger. I’ve had numerous conversations on social media with workers from my constituency who work both in the Trostre works and in the Port Talbot steelworks. They tell story after story of having spent decades working seven shifts in a row, working shifts through weekends and bank holidays, nights, long days in stressful, physical environments—all on the promise that they could retire at 55 on a decent pension. After a horrendous year when they’ve faced the abyss, they now have to give up the pension rights that they’ve worked hard to secure. They’ve lost faith in their company. One of them put it very starkly to me: ‘We’re being asked to jump into a black hole, while they whisper, “We will catch you”.’

The anger is real and understandable and there’s a very real risk that the vote will be lost. Tata need to listen to this. If they genuinely want this deal to go through, they need to consider what further concessions they can offer, especially to those steelworkers who are within 10 years of retirement, who pose the biggest threat, I believe, to the vote. But I do worry about political game-playing. It would be a calamity to the Welsh economy if Tata put its Welsh operations into receivership, and that is very clearly what they are threatening to do. Were that to happen, not only would the works go into administration, but the pensions would go into the pension protection fund, and the rights would go. They would lose not just the 10 per cent, but, as John Benson was successfully arguing today from the Allied Steel and Wire precedent, the amount of pension they’d end up getting is nearer 50 per cent.

Compare this to where we were 10 months ago. We now do at least have some commitment. There is doubt about how sincere that commitment is. [Interruption.] Indeed.

Does he accept that there is a distinction here? Because, of course, Tata has a parent company and, uniquely in English and Welsh law, there is unlimited liability under the Pensions Act 2014. The pension regulator can actually go after Tata’s assets, whether they’re in Europe, India, or wherever across the world.

You’re not going to find me defending Tata in this position, and I have no idea what arrangements Tata have put in place to deal with the eventuality of losing this vote. But they’re not daft and they are very clear in their view that, if they lose this vote, they will go. And then what do we do? This is why I think it is irresponsible to be urging the voters, to be playing on this understandable anger, urging them to vote ‘no’, because then where are we? The point that Adam Price made about the motivations behind this and the liabilities on the pension fund and the competition from the Dutch plant was a very persuasive argument, but the hard-headed fact remains that this is the deal we’ve got on the table—this is the best deal the trade unions could negotiate and it’s the only deal that Tata were willing to agree to, despite the pressure and the incentives offered by the Welsh Government. If it wasn’t for the £4 million investment on the table from the Welsh Government, there wouldn’t be a deal in the first place. And that £4 million comes with strings. We’ve done all that we can to pull it back from the brink and now the workforce must choose. But I do urge caution for those in this Chamber who are calling on the workers to reject it, because they will bear a heavy responsibility if the plants go under.

Our only real power—this is where we do have a choice—is to avoid being in this position again. We need to lessen our dependence on large, foreign-owned multinationals. We need to embrace innovation and confront the fourth industrial revolution. It’s a sobering fact that the 7,000 jobs at stake in Tata pale into insignificance compared to the 700,000 jobs in Wales that are under threat from automation. That’s what we should be confronting here: looking ahead to get out of this short-term crisis and start planning for a future where we embrace the foundational economy and innovation. I hope that Tata workers vote to accept the package, not because I think it’s a watertight deal—I don’t—but because, until we craft a radical new economic strategy that’ll benefit workers across Wales, it’s the only deal we’ve got.

It’s a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I do think that we should be having a debate, to address one of the points mentioned earlier. Everything is essentially political, whether we like it or not. I think everyone in this Chamber would agree that we want to see a steel industry succeeding here in Wales and prospering for many decades to come. We’ve seen the headlines, and I won’t rehearse the wonderful arguments put forward by Adam Price and Bethan Jenkins already. Of course, a number of possible solutions have also been aired over the past few months, and the role of the Government here in Wales has been discussed and what exactly we could do about the problem of Tata in Port Talbot. We’ve had the debates about business rates and the fundamental need to invest in skills, and, of course, the whole issue of public procurement.

We must have a more broad-ranging strategy, and my intention, in the few minutes I have, is to look more broadly as to how we can provide a programme that can take us into the future. Because it’s very difficult for the Welsh Government, with all due respect, to have an influence on global markets, but I do think that the Welsh Government can take action to create a healthier market for steel here in Wales by having an industrial strategy with core elements focused on skills, and the need to develop skills, and that gets to grips with the whole issue of public procurement and how we go about public procurement, and, of course, also addresses the whole issue of infrastructure and the need to develop infrastructure, as a means of getting us out of the economic difficulties that we’re currently facing.

We’ve had a number of debates already on a national infrastructure commission for Wales, the so-called NICW. And, of course, negotiations are ongoing and we hope to persuade the Government, but it’s still true that our NICW in Plaid Cymru isn’t the same as your NICW within Government. But there are signs that things may change, and of course things need to change. There is £40 billion-worth of infrastructure that is waiting to be built. We must release that potential using, of course, resources such as locally procured steel in order to help us achieve that infrastructure work.

We had some exciting news about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon last week. Of course, there are some financial issues that are yet to be agreed at the other end of the M4, but there is huge excitement surrounding that project, and, of course, the infrastructure, the skills and the raw materials must come from somewhere, and that’s why we need to develop a comprehensive industrial strategy here in Wales, with steel as a core part of it. So, this debate this afternoon is extremely important. It’s very important that we are having this debate. I don’t think that there are any circumstances where we shouldn’t be having a debate when we have people in our constituencies who are put at risk directly by what is happening in terms of the future of their jobs and their pensions. Of course, we should be staging these debates, and we shouldn’t restrict our ability to express our views and our concerns on the basis of the experiences of those living within our constituencies. But also the Welsh Government needs to look more broadly and to work proactively to create an industrial strategy for Wales with steel at its heart. Thank you.

Can I start my contribution by declaring that I’m a proud member of Unite, one of the unions that’s obviously represented in the steelworks, along with Community and GMB? I hope by now that Members in this Chamber will be aware of my passion for the steel industry, my belief in a strong, vibrant future, my respect for the steelworkers, and my total commitment to them, their families and my communities.

The crisis in steel was abundantly clear over 18 months ago when SSI announced the closure of Redcar, and the UK Government actually started to wake up a little bit to the challenges facing one of our foundation industries. It’s only 12 months ago that the loss of over 1,000 jobs in Tata Steel UK was announced, and we started to see the impact of that crisis here in Wales—followed within months by an announcement to sell the Tata Steel UK operations. Since then, steelworkers and their families, particularly those in my home town, have gone through hell not knowing whether there would even be a steelworks remaining in the town and a job to go to.

During this time, strong leadership to secure steel making in Wales has been given by both this Welsh Labour Government and the steel unions. I think it’s disgraceful the UK Government has not shown the same commitment to our steel industry. In fact, since the change of Prime Minister, since last summer, we have struggled to actually hear any reference to retaining a strong and vibrant steel industry from any member of Theresa May’s Government. That does need to change. They need to be more public with that support.

The challenges facing our steel industry have not gone away. Yes, the drop in the pound has helped the sector improve its financial position, but long-term sustainability cannot be based upon the fluctuations, which are volatile, in exchange rates. In the EU and UK, the steel demand growth rate for 2016 was up 0.8 per cent and forecasts for 2017 are up 1.4 per cent. That’s still more than 20 per cent down on the demand figures for 2007. The OECD actually estimates the global overcapacity of steel as 700 million tonnes next year—400 million tonnes of which will be Chinese steel, by the way—and that global competition will continue to be challenging and dumping will still be a threat.

When we add to this the likely impact of Brexit and the announcement yesterday that the UK will leave the single market—and this is particularly important as Tata actually exports three times as much to the EU-27 as it does to any other country—there is clearly still a long way to go to provide a secure and sustainable industry. We must continue to do what we can to deliver that.

This Labour Government has already agreed over £16 million of investment to Tata to support skills training for the future workforce, and for work on redeveloping the power plant in Port Talbot as part of the £16 million identified as support for Welsh steel making—funding that is conditional upon a commitment from Tata of continuing with two blast furnaces at the heavy end of Port Talbot—and future investment. It has also indicated an ambition to establish a steel research centre in collaboration with Swansea University, thus looking to make Wales a centre of production of premium steel.

The steel unions have worked tirelessly to reach agreements on the transformation plan, to challenge the UK and EU Governments and to secure investment and job security for the workforce. The current proposal being considered by the steelworkers is the culmination of tough and lengthy negotiations undertaken by the unions with that aim. They have been and will be there for their members, and for anyone to claim that they are doing their members a disservice is deplorable. Anyone making such comments, in my view, should withdraw them and apologise to the unions.

Now is a time to show respect to steelworkers and allow them to seek out the full facts of this agreement on offer. I agree with my colleague from Llanelli; these proposals are not great, they’re not fantastic and there are serious challenges. My personal view: when the public sector issues were raised under the UK Government, I was totally in support of ensuring that anyone who was in a scheme was allowed to stay in that scheme—they bought into it, they should stay in it. I’m still of that view. I haven’t changed my mind. But in this case, I’m not going to express an opinion as to which way they should vote on this.

It is important that we allow them to seek the full facts from a variety of sources—and I actually raised this with the CEO of Tata Steel UK: ‘Get independent advice for your workers and make sure that it is independent’—for them to weigh up the proposals and the possible outcomes, so whichever way they vote, it will be based upon their personal considerations and not on rumour or political manoeuvring.

Llywydd, today’s motion is calling on the Welsh Government to intervene in this process, ignore those discussions and replace unions in any further negotiations with the company on an agreement for the workers. That’s what it says. I hope Plaid Cymru is not now saying that the unions should no longer have a role in reaching agreements with the company and put in offers to members by Governments instead.

We all understand that the steel industry is a volatile and cyclical business. It’s extremely sensitive to fluctuations of the global economy.

Will the Member give way?

I’ll give way, yes.

I’m grateful. We heard in the earlier debate, didn’t we, the importance of the social partnership model, which is tripartite—company, unions and Government. Surely, in the context of the steel industry, there is an absolutely central role for Government and, I agree, for Governments—plural; both Welsh and UK.

I think the motion’s second point actually highlights that working together is important. The motion’s first point actually says the Government should replace the unions in the negotiations. So, it’s actually a separation—a mixture of the two. 2016 saw Brexit, Trump and an increasingly belligerent Russia. In 2017, we’re already seeing challenges with China and the trading world by Trump’s administration, which could have a greater impact upon Europe, and we wait to see what the knock-on effect of that will be on our steel industry. We have a long way to go. It’s uncertain and unstable. We need to create a sustainable industry. Governments and politicians must work with unions and steelworkers to achieve that. It is our job to work with them, as you quite rightly point out, in partnership, but not to dictate to them our views.

As an Assembly Member for north Wales, of course, and as someone who lives in north-east Wales, it is important that we remember that this is about more than Port Talbot, as Members have already reminded us. There was a great deal of doom and gloom the last time I visited Shotton steelworkers last year. The cloud hanging over the entire Tata enterprise had extended even to one of the most consistently profitable and innovative plants where 700 workers produce, of course, cutting-edge materials and finished steel that is exported across the world. But, as has already been mentioned in the past in this Chamber, it is used in Wales as well extensively: the Millennium Stadium, the most iconic of our national buildings, of course, is coated with Shotton’s unique steel.

Despite producing profits for the past decade, steelworkers in Shotton have not seen a pay rise for the past five years and despite the contribution they make to the company, many of them feel that a gun is being held to workers’ heads when it comes to pensions and that feeling, understandably, is particularly acute amongst those over 50, some of whom could, as we know, lose a significant amount if the pension deal goes through. This pension deal is based on a short-term promise. As we’ve heard, and as Adam reminded us, it’s not a bankable promise. We have no guarantees that Port Talbot won’t be under threat again in five years or even less and the workers in the meantime will be leaving with a poorer pension.

Shotton had its meltdown moment in 1980, of course, when the biggest redundancy announcement in a single day in western Europe saw 6,500 steelworkers lose their job. The economic devastation that caused, of course, for Shotton, Deeside, the whole of Flintshire and beyond lasted for a generation and that mustn’t happen to Port Talbot: a community similarly built on steel and equally dependant. I am optimistic for the future of Shotton steelworks—somewhere that’s adapted and innovated since those dark days—and I’m equally hopeful that the deal we need to see and we all want to see the workforce obtain in terms of wages and deferred wage—pensions—will be the right one for a brighter future. But, of course, it won’t happen unless the Welsh and UK Governments are more tenacious in demanding that it happens.

Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to be able to once again speak up for steelworkers in my community at the Shotton site and, of course, across the country. On the issue of the British Steel pension scheme, from the conversations and correspondence I’ve had, there is concern that Tata isn’t providing the workforce with all the details they need at their disposal in order to make an informed decision on the implications for their future. I understand that the employer is actually answering—or not answering questions to be more accurate—employees with an inadequate ‘don’t know’. Another specific uncertainty and lack of clarity is on the mechanisms for the potential separation—the impact of benefits accrued and the resting place for the British Steel pension scheme. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that Tata must address these concerns and answer the questions of their hard-working workforce across Wales and the UK.

In addition, I am also acutely aware of the uncertainty and anxiety being created by the UK Government’s apparent lack of strategy and action with regard to our fundamental foundation industry of steel. It’s been magnified, from the employees I’ve been speaking to, in recent reports that the UK Government has apparently refused to guarantee that British steel will be used in the construction of high speed 2, HS2. I noticed the Welsh Conservative amendment that recognises the UK Government’s role in supporting the steel industry through the introduction of new procurement rules. I think we need this in practice, not just written in principle, and our steel industry—

Will you take an intervention? Do you not recognise that 95 per cent of all steel used on British railways is British steel and Chris Grayling has given a commitment to the House of Commons that he wants to see British steel used in HS2 but there are procurement procedures that have to be gone through?

I was going to go on to say that what we need now is not just one word: we need action without delay. Cabinet Secretary, I know the workforce and management at Shotton recognise the support and steps taken by the Welsh Government, but I’d ask you and colleagues and others here to join us to apply additional pressure to make sure that we take seriously the future of steel, that we commit to the use of steel procured in the UK and that we really do put the money where the mouth is to make sure we see our steel industry not only sustained and saved, but growing in the future.

Thank you. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure—Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Could I begin by thanking Members for their contributions today and for their continued interest in this significant subject? I’d also like to declare my membership of Unite the Union at this stage and suggest: at the outset, let’s just agree, everybody across this Chamber, that nobody should do or say anything to undermine the future of Welsh steel or steelworkers’ jobs. For those that depend on steel—Tata workers, their families, people in the supply chain and, of course, towns and villages around sites across Wales—the last 12 months have been nothing less horrendous, and it’s my belief that it’s our duty to bring hope and surety where there’s fear, not to sustain it by fuelling mistrust or by turning people against one another.

I think it’s fair to say we’ve come a long way since last January. An enormous amount of work has been undertaken in that time by workers, by Welsh Government, by trade unions, by management at the plant, and by partners right across the sector, but we are not out of the woods yet. As the leader of the Conservative party said, this is still a sensitive period. However, thanks to the significant financial contributions by this Welsh Government and as a result of the turnaround plan that is being delivered at Port Talbot, in particular, there is hope once more.

As soon as Tata announced planned redundancies, it was the Welsh Government, working with trade unions, that rallied partners together to support those affected. As soon as Tata announced their proposed sale of the UK operations, it was this Welsh Government that made an offer of £60 million of support for the company through a combination of loans and grants. And as part of that package before Christmas, I announced £4 million of investment in skills across Tata’s Wales operations, and a further £8 million towards the £18 million investment at Port Talbot’s power plant to enable more efficient operations, reduce energy costs and, of course, to cut emissions. In addition, I also announced proposals for a new research and development base in Swansea, because our focus has always been on ensuring a sustainable steel-making presence here in Wales. The investments that we’ve announced to date are designed to enable real efficiencies to be delivered right across the Welsh plants, and to help safeguard jobs into the future, irrespective of future ownership. Because, as Lee Waters rightly said, automation and competition are the biggest challenges that we face in the fourth industrial revolution. We must transform those challenges into opportunities through R&D and modernisation.

In addition, a major element of any sustainable solution for steel in Wales was to solve the pension issue. That’s why I believe that the proposed agreement between Tata and the trade unions is a positive and significant step towards securing that sustainable future. It is important to remember, I believe, that the future of the British Steel pension scheme was an issue for all of those that expressed an interest in purchasing Tata’s operations in Wales. And whether or not workers accept the proposal that has been agreed is a decision for them to make.

Members will be aware—

Will you take an intervention?

[Continues.]—that pension matters are not devolved. However, in our—yes.

Thank you. Just on that last point, really, there’s been quite a lot of talk today about what the role of Government is in terms of opinion and advising. From what I hear, you’ve made it clear that anything that the First Minister might have said here, for example, is merely opinion and is not advising. Is there a point, or has there been a point during your negotiations in putting the Welsh Government package together—which I don’t diminish, actually—where your advice has been sought rather than your opinion?

First of all, the pensions issue is a non-devolved issue, and the First Minister and I have been absolutely clear that, in the absence of any other opportunity, option or discussion, this is the only offer that’s available. And the question will be for workers to decide whether to accept the deal that is being presented to them or to reject it and therefore throw the entire steel industry in Wales and beyond into doubt. This is a question that workers themselves need to answer and make judgment on.

But I think it’s quite obvious, based on what Hannah Blythyn has said and what others have urged, that we have to make sure that—[Interruption.] Not at this point. We have to make sure that in the run-up to the ballot, Tata take full responsibility for providing valuable information to workers and ensure that they interact fully with the workforce, so that they can explain in detail the implications of the agreement that is being reached.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way on this particular point. The importance, in the run-up to any ballot, is confidence.

Yes.

To date, the confidence in the workforce has been shattered—I’ve said this many times to the First Minister and you. Will you also join me, perhaps, in calling for the new chair of Tata Sons to make a public statement to try and start that rebuilding of confidence in what they say?

Yes, I would. This was something, again, that we discussed on Monday, the First Minister and I, with Bimlendra Jha, the chief executive of Tata Steel. I think it’s absolutely essential that trust is rebuilt—that it’s not diminished further, but that it is rebuilt. That’s essential, not just for the company—that is absolutely essential for workers, the unions and the communities that they inhabit. [Interruption.] Yes, I would.

It’s just a point of information, really. When he says that this is the only deal on the table, he’s aware, obviously, of the Excalibur bid, which, actually, the Welsh Government have funded—

Indeed.

Is he saying that that is no longer a live bid?

No, it’s my understanding that Excalibur are still proposing what they were offering last year. But even for Excalibur, the steel pensions issue was a live one and a very serious one that they would have to contend with. There is not one single party that was interested in the steel operation that did not admit that the steel issue was a major problem to overcome.

I think it’s worth pointing out at this point that—. I’d like to repeat the pleas made by the trade unions that the ballot needs to be undertaken in a way that is free from political interference. Nobody can be in any doubt of the commitment of this Welsh Government in terms of securing a sustainable future for steel in Wales. Now, keeping jobs and production at all of the Tata Steel plants in Wales remains this Government’s No. 1 priority in terms of industry. And throughout this process, we’ve worked closely with Tata and responded swiftly to the changes over the past year, and we will continue to do so. We’ll work in this manner on an ongoing basis, but there are significant challenges ahead.

Discussions around a potential joint venture with ThyssenKrupp are a commercial matter, but the Welsh Government will continue to take a very close interest in any future deal. As I’ve said, the support we have provided through Welsh Government is conditional and that conditionality will apply to any joint venture. Both the First Minister and I have said in our meeting with Tata this week that protecting workers’ rights is absolutely vital, and whatever the outcome of the ballot, our commitment to protecting those rights will continue.

There’s been much said about the role of UK Government and it’s my belief that there is still time for the UK Government to make a very significant contribution. The ask that the First Minister has consistently made of the UK Government to put in place a package of support for energy-intensive industries remains valid, because energy prices are too high. And this, again, was reflected to us just this week.

In the context of the hard-Brexit option that the Prime Minister outlined just this week, it’s even more important for our steel industry to be genuinely competitive, given that it will, very soon, sit outside the single market. We want to secure the long-term future for our steel industry and action on this is now imperative.

Deputy Presiding Officer, whilst decisions regarding the future of the plants are not ours to make, I will continue to ensure that we fully engage with all parties to ensure that messages regarding jobs, investment and protection for workers are heard by Tata’s most senior representatives. But as Dai Rees, as Lee Waters and as others have said, this is no time for politicking, no time for grandstanding—

I’m sorry, I’ve allowed for you to have interventions as well, so can you—?

And jobs, livelihoods and the fate of the communities need our support.

Thank you very much. I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been, I think, a valuable debate. I know that steelworkers who have contacted us will have appreciated hearing the range of views, of opinions, in relation to the package of proposals that will shortly be put before them. I thought it was very, very indicative that the backbench Members who spoke who have steel plants in their constituency all expressed very serious concerns about the current proposals. And I think that justifies the need for us to have this debate, and to put pressure on Tata to come up with a better deal that meets these reasonable concerns that have been expressed in this Chamber today. I have to say to Caroline Jones, I disagree with almost everything she said, but she’s still a nice person. But I have to say in all seriousness, while of course, ultimately, this has to be a decision for steelworkers, we cannot, nevertheless, outsource our responsibility as the elected Parliament. If we don’t speak on something as important as this, what are we don’t to speak on? I have to say, while we won’t be supporting the Conservative amendment, I think I welcome the fact that Andrew R.T. Davies accepts the important role in having a debate on the future of the steel industry, and their amendment does importantly refer to the need for a contingency plan. Because if we accept that it is the worker’s right to reject this deal, then we, as an elected Parliament and the Government of the country, have to come up with an alternative proposal that responds to that new situation.

I thank the Members on my side for their contributions—particularly, I’d like to pay tribute to Bethan Jenkins. Nobody has been closer to the steelworkers—going back over many, many years now—and, in fact, the reason that we have said what we have said in the public domain is because steelworkers have asked us to. We recognise that there’s a range of views among the workforce as well, but it’s important that those concerns were expressed publicly. I have to say—[Interruption.] I don’t have time, unfortunately. I think the important point is that Government now has a role, in the time that’s available, before the end of the month when these proposals are going to start to be voted on—we need Welsh Government in there saying to Tata, ‘Look, there’s a real prospect that this vote could be lost unless you meet these reasonable concerns.’ That’s why we need the Welsh Government to be in there in a leadership role, trying to actually respond to what we’ve heard today.

I have to say to Lee Waters, he started off, and I was in agreement with him—this is an act of economic blackmail, and then he made the case for completely capitulating to it. There was a phrase for that—[Interruption.] I don’t have time, I’m afraid. There was a phrase for that—I don’t have time. There was a phrase for that: ‘There is no alternative’. It was a phrase we heard a lot in the 1980s. That is not the kind of politics that we should accept. There is an alternative. We heard from the Cabinet Secretary himself that there is another deal on the table from a company that is offering a 25 per cent stake to the workforce. They’re being invited in this deal to fund their own rescue package out of their own pension, well why not actually look at that other deal? There was another prospective buyer over the weekend that actually wrote directly to the British Steel Pension—[Interruption.]

The Member is not giving way.

[Continues.]—wanted to offer more money into the pension fund. [Interruption.]

Not giving way.

There is an alternative for Tata as well. They could strengthen the deal. Ratan Tata came out of retirement because he was appalled by the kind of slash and burn short-termism that Cyrus Mistry had injected into the company. His new leadership represents a return to Tata’s traditional values of fairness and long-termism, and I think now we should appeal to the interim, emeritus chair of Tata Steel at a global level. Let’s have that fairness. Let’s have that long-term approach. The steelworkers of Wales deserve nothing less.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time.

We now move on to item 5, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on the National Grid cables, and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion. Simon.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’m delighted to open this debate, which, perhaps, doesn’t have any link to the previous debate, apart from the fact that pylons are made out of steel. While we still have pylons, let’s make them out of Welsh steel, certainly. But, really, this debate is more around our electricity future, and how we plan, long term, for an electricity future that strengthens our self-sufficiency. Renewable energy in particular in Wales strengthens the decentralisation of the electricity grid to provide room and scope for more community projects to come on board and deals with and addresses a sore issue, it has to be said—that of the visual impact of energy developments in Wales, and particularly the visual impact that is delivered by electricity pylons. Because we all accept that if we’re going to produce electricity in parts of Wales, then that power has to be transported to the places where people need to use that electricity. The fact is that the parts of Wales that are either richest in natural resources for the production of electricity, which tend to be the mountains and offshore, all those parts of Wales that have a history of energy generation, such as Wylfa in Anglesey, will need some form of transmitting that power. But, very often, the visual impact of electricity pylons can be extremely intrusive.

Although, as I’ve dealt with this for 15 years, on and off, in different fora, I’m not blind to the way that people advocate or talk about energy production and pylons, and although I accept, on occasion, some of the opposition to pylons is actually a proxy for opposition to the actual project in the first place, I do think there’s a way of planning better here in Wales. I say that because I’ve seen it myself. I’ve seen alternatives. When I wrestled in a previous Assembly with the mid Wales generation projects—ones that, unfortunately, never got the go-ahead, in terms of renewable energy, due to the fact that the Liberal Democrat Minister jibbed out at the last minute in giving that go-ahead—. But one of the things that would’ve happened in mid Wales was a proliferation of pylons, and there was a lot of concern about the visual impact of those pylons. The concern about the pylons was wider than the concern about the windfarms, though there was concern about the windfarms as well, I accept that.

In particular, there was concern that there could be a significant impact on areas that people perceived as being of great either historic or beauty value for themselves, but weren’t designated as such. You can have areas of outstanding natural beauty and we have national parks; there are rules within those contexts, but an area like Meifod in mid Wales is not an area of outstanding natural beauty by designation, but it’s a very historic area, and it’s a valley that people value. I certainly engaged both with the campaigners but also with National Grid to understand how they couldn’t actually bury the cables to go through Meifod, which was, in the end, an agreement that the National Grid did provide, though it’s not going ahead now, anyway, because don’t have the windfarms that are coming in. And as part of that, I was taken to see a project that the National Grid were running to bury cables in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Unfortunately, that wasn’t in Wales, because they weren’t burying any cables in Wales. I had to go to Herefordshire, I had to go to the Wye valley outside Wales and see it happening for myself.

Now, burying cables is not without any impact at all. It’s quite messy and noisy, and is quite a scar across the landscape at the time. But those of us who’ve seen both cables and the gas pipeline, for example, from Pembrokeshire, buried over the years will know that, in time, the land does restitute itself and the cables are not to be seen, the pipelines are not to be seen and, in fact, you have a temporary blip on a landscape, if I can put it that way, rather than the more permanent blot on the landscape that pylons represent. So, the purpose of today’s debate is to try and get us to move away from some of the local arguments we have around pylons and have a national approach to this, and a national concept of where we want to take our energy production and our planning for that.

Other countries are there already. Germany, last year—well, I say last year, but it was the end of 2015, so it’s a little more than that now—in the Bundestag, passed a power cable law to ensure that major power connections were built as underground cables, rather than overland cables. In Denmark, which I visited last October, there’s been a cross-party consensus for over a decade that major cables, which—in the motion we talked about the National Grid, because, obviously, the local cables are distributing companies’ responsibility and they are looked at differently. But major cables, the National Grid in this context, should be buried. That’s 3,200 km of 150 kV and 132 kV lines to be buried in Denmark as part of their planning for a renewable energy future. So, Denmark is doing all sorts of things, like banning diesel cars from Copenhagen and going to 100 per cent renewable electricity, but they’re burying the cables. They know that people will accept part of the picture. They will accept, perhaps, changes in their landscape that come as a result of a need to move to a more energy-efficient future, but they don’t just accept it at any price. They want to see those who are responsible for planning and producing electricity meeting with them half way. One of the ways we can do that is by ensuring that we have consistent policies across Wales, not just in our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but across Wales, that respect people’s own appreciation of their landscape and allow them to approach that and to underground cables, in effect.

Undergrounding does cost more, and there’s a range of costs—a range of costs that are often quoted at around seven times more. But in fact, when you factor in the fact that underground cables are not subject to severe weather, they are more reliable if you get it right. On getting it right, as I saw when I visited the undergrounding in the Wye valley, it’s extremely important that the engineering is spot on. It’s quite a technical and detailed process, but if you can get it spot on—if you get it right—then you have longevity, and you have a more robust system. All of us would want to see, particularly as we move perhaps to a more responsive energy grid where there will be less over-production—just in case 1 million people put on the kettle at the same time half way through the cup final, or whatever—to a more responsive grid that has local energy production, local distribution, and a national system, then we need to be spot on with our engineering, and that means that we need a much more robust grid that won’t topple over or won’t be affected by severe weather, and will be there and be reliable.

So, when you factor in those factors, the cost of undergrounding goes to between two and five times more than simply putting a pile of pylons over landscape. I just think that’s one of the things that we have to face: that this may cost us more. But as part of developing a much more robust energy system, and one that can be ready for the developments of the future, whether it’s the tidal lagoon, which I want to see in Swansea bay, or developments in Anglesey, inland power or offshore developments with wind—or, even still, because we still have some potential for onshore development in wind—we want to see that undergrounded as much as possible. So, there’d be lower maintenance costs; lower transmission costs; less susceptibility to the impacts of severe weather; and a way of demonstrating to the people of Wales that we want to work with them, respecting their appreciation of their natural environment and working with them to ensure that energy future.

I hope that this debate will allow us to elucidate. Certainly, Plaid Cymru Members want to talk about their own areas, want to talk about decentralising the grid, want to talk about renewable energy, and I hope that the Government’s amendments, which I note don’t go quite far enough—. But I hope that, at the end of this debate, we’ll at least have come to some kind of agreement, so that when we talk to Ofgem and when we undertake the long-term planning of where the capital investment has to be made by these energy companies, we’ll take that opportunity to ensure that it’s made in the name of the people of Wales and in the name of the long-term sustainability and resilience of our Welsh economy.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to move formally amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Thank you very much. Sian Gwenllian.

Together with the Member of Parliament, Hywel Williams, I gave evidence on the first statutory consultation of the National Grid on the north Wales link, namely the scheme that would create a line of pylons across Arfon and Ynys Môn. In Arfon, specifically, we were calling for a tunnel under the Menai strait, instead of new pylons, because of the completely negative visual impact that would have in an area of outstanding natural beauty. We had concerns about the impact of pylons on the local area and the Snowdonia national park, which is adjacent. I’m very pleased that that campaign was successful, with a tunnel under the Menai strait as part of the scheme, to date, but of course that could yet change.

During the last consultation, I stated that the small section, 1 km in length, of pylons on the main land in Arfon should be undergrounded. That continues to be part of the scheme on the table at present, and that also because of the visual impact from the national park. The national park is an essential asset for the economic and cultural well-being of the area, both now and in the future, and any development that could have a negative impact on people’s enjoyment of the views within the park could have a detrimental effect on the local economy, through tourism, and so on.

Plaid Cymru, of course, believes that powers over the grid, in addition to full powers over energy projects under the planning regime, should be in the hands of the people of Wales. This is where we should be taking those decisions. Therefore, we would not have to be dependent on the goodwill of the National Grid with the matter of the tunnel under the Menai, for example.

In the interim, we must look at how to alleviate these issues in a more realistic manner, perhaps. In the interim, we need to give consideration to the way in which decisions are taken. In processing projects, there has been a great deal of delay in the planning system. The planning authorities are responsible for ensuring that the visual impact of electricity transmission projects is mitigated, and the National Grid must consider the visual impact of various technologies and possible routes for the transmission of electricity in order to secure planning permission, and all of that takes time. Pylons do cause a great deal of bad feeling locally because of the detriment to the amenity, and this all causes a long delay in the planning system—on average, a delay of between eight and 10 years. If the undergrounding option was available from the very start, then this delay would not happen.

A lot of attention is paid to the cost of undergrounding. In 2014, the Infrastructure Planning Commission said that underground cables are between 4.5 and 5.7 times more expensive than having traditional pylons. That sounds like a large sum. But, when you look at the cost of maintenance, electricity loss, the ‘Downton’ effect and the fact, as I said, that planning decisions can take so long, when you take all of this into consideration, the figure is reduced to between twice and five times more expensive. Nobody is arguing that undergrounding, at present, isn’t more expensive, but that could change, of course, as the technology improves. Even then, it is less than 2 per cent of the production cost. That is of comparatively little significance when compared to the negative impact of pylons, which would be of great importance to the local economy.

I welcome this debate on a very important subject, actually. The spread of electricity supply in the 1920s and 1930s liberated many from much drudgery, but it did mark our landscape and rather transformed it in an ugly way. Whereas the romantic poets saw Wales as one of the great areas of the sublime and beautiful, we now all too often have to look at what would be wonderful views if it wasn’t for the fact that these huge pylons march across them in many areas. So, I do think that this is something that is really worthy of consideration as alternatives now present themselves. I do note—and Simon Thomas did refer to it briefly—that the National Grid itself has currently a plan to remove the bulkiest pylons from beauty spots around the UK, and Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons are included in that programme. It is set to cost £500 million in the first phase, which may sound a lot, but actually, you don’t get to bury that much with that sort of investment. But, at least, it is a sign that they realise that things are changing in response to public demand, but also a greater desire to see the landscape restored.

I note that the debate in Anglesey has been particularly heated. I think that that is a sign of things to come, frankly, because people will ask quite fundamental questions: ‘If we have got to put up with the power plant, why do we have the least attractive way of then transmitting that power?’ Isn’t it part of the deal you do with the local economy that you try to help them as much as possible? The costs are not inconsiderable. As a rough rule of thumb, it costs twice as much to bury a cable as to have it overhead. But I do think it is the alternative that should always be considered.

There are general advantages also that go beyond the obvious benefits to the landscape. Buried cables are more resilient of severe weather conditions. My researcher here has got in brackets ‘apart from earthquakes’; well, I’m not going to include those. It’s a natural phenomenon, so perhaps we should be mindful of that, but fortunately we don’t suffer from very strong earthquakes in Wales. There’s less of a hazard: the safety for people, wildlife and aircraft from burying cables is considerable. Also, they don’t need as much land, believe it or not, despite the fact they’re buried, as—[Interruption.] No, they don’t. If you bury a cable you need half as much land as you do for the overhead cables.

So, there are many advantages. There are disadvantages, the cost being the obvious one, but they’re also more difficult to repair and maintain, so we need to bear that in mind. However, I do think that does not take away from the general argument in favour of burying cables whenever possible, and certainly implementing a programme to bury cables wherever feasible in areas of great natural beauty.

Where we have overhead cables, I think when they’re replaced we should be looking at less intrusive versions. I am glad that the so-called T-pylon is now being tested. That’s a lot slimmer and also shorter than traditional pylons, so that may be a way, where we have to use overhead pylons, of letting them blend in a bit more, anyway, to the landscape.

Can I say that we will support the motion? Should we get to the amendments, we will support the amendments as well. The visual impact provision programme, I think, should be continued. We need to look at how we can plan this sort of programme of work, because it is a big investment. It will take time, but I’m glad we’re discussing it this afternoon. It’s a very worthy thing, and I’m sure future generations will thank us if we make this a particular priority now.

Thanks to the contributors so far. Anglesey and its representatives are unanimously against the National Grid’s plan to put a line of pylons across the island. I, the county council, the MP, the community councils and thousands of residents have been consistent in our opposition to the grid’s plans, and there have been hardly any positive responses from the grid to that chorus of voices.

Quite simply, they’re going for the cheapest option. Yes, they’ve tried to give the impression that they’ve compromised a little by agreeing to put cables in a tunnel under the Menai, but the truth is that they never intended to seek consent for another line of cables across the Menai, which, of course, is an area of outstanding natural beauty.

But, did they have an option other than pylons across the island? The answer, quite simply, is, ‘Yes, of course.’ Undersea and underground links are quite common. I recall, in my very first meeting with grid officials back in 2013, that those officials told me, ‘Well, of course we can put cables under the sea; it will be a technical challenge, but of course it can be done.’ However, since then, the idea hasn’t really been considered in earnest, as it should have been, with technical arguments put forward time and time again, and that is despite the undersea links that are developed in other parts of Britain. It’s very difficult for laypeople such as myself to make a strong case against the grid’s technical arguments, but I am still convinced that this is an option that could work.

What if we accept that the technical challenge of linking a nuclear power station by underground cables is too great a challenge? Well, there is nothing new in undergrounding technology, and there is adequate evidence that it is a more efficient technology in terms of energy loss from the grid, and its resilience in poor weather, as we’ve heard. Yes, it leaves a scarred landscape temporarily and, yes, it is more expensive, and it is cost that is at the heart of the grid’s proposals on Anglesey. Pylons are the cheapest option. The short-term cost to the grid is lower than other options—some £400 million is the additional cost, according to the grid, of undergrounding. But what of the cost of pylons to the people of Anglesey and the impact on the value of their properties and their businesses, and on tourism, never mind the impact on quality of life? Rather than putting the financial burden on the people of Anglesey—

Will you give way?

[Continues.]—the cost should—

Fe wnaf mewn eiliad.

[Continues.]—be borne by all energy users. I’ve seen estimates that the cost of undergrounding would be less than 1p a week for every electricity user in Britain over the lifespan of that link. That’s the truth.

Fe ildiaf.

Diolch. As you know, we both attended a ‘no to pylons’ meeting on Anglesey in December 2015, but do you share my concern that, although the National Grid told me that they’re paid whether they put pylons over or under ground but Ofgem require best value for the customer, the One Voice Wales Anglesey pylon committee, who’ve written to Members on their response to the National Grid consultation, say the grid has declared, since 2012, that the pylon option has been chosen on the basis of cost alone, and that the pylon option brings only negative impacts to the sustainability of small and medium-sized businesses and tourism and agriculture on the island?

You’re certainly right, I agree, and Ofgem is key. I’ll come on to some of the deliberations that I have had with Ofgem in a minute. It’s crucial that we move, as we’re hopefully going to be doing in the Assembly today, to a situation where there is an assumption in favour, through Ofgem allowing that, of undergrounding. I’ll go on.

Mae cost ychwanegol tanddaearu, wrth gwrs, yn rhywbeth y mae’r grid ei hunan yn gwybod bod yn rhaid iddo ei dalu efo datblygiadau mewn rhai llefydd. Rydym ni wedi clywed yn barod am y datblygiadau sy’n digwydd mewn parciau cenedlaethol. Nid yw Ynys Môn yn barc cenedlaethol—nid oes gennym ni gwarchodaeth deddfwriaeth parc cenedlaethol. Ond i ardal lle mae twristiaeth yn fwy pwysig nag yn unrhyw ran arall o’r Deyrnas Unedig fel cyfran o GDP, wrth gwrs, mae’n harddwch naturiol ni mor bwysig ag ydyw mewn unrhyw barc cenedlaethol.

Mi drafodais i’r mater efo Ofgem cyn y Nadolig. Mi gytunon nhw i fynnu bod y grid rŵan yn gosod allan yn llawer cliriach sut maen nhw wedi cynnal eu hasesiad o impact gweledol. Mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru hefyd, yn eu hymateb i ymgynghoriad y grid, wedi nodi’n gryf eu bod nhw’n credu nad oes asesiadau impact gweledol digon trylwyr wedi cael eu cynnal ym Môn. Y gwir amdani, wrth reswm, ydy nad oes modd dianc oddi wrth y casgliad bod impact gweledol gosod peilonau yn mynd i fod yn fwy nag impact unrhyw fodd arall o drosglwyddo trydan.

Dyna pam mae Denmarc a’r Almaen yn ddiweddar wedi penderfynu mai tanddaearu fydd y norm, a Denmarc yn gwario, rydw i’n meddwl, dros £2 biliwn yn ychwanegol ar danddaearu ceblau sydd yna’n bresennol. Mae Ofgem hefyd eisoes wedi cytuno i gais gen i i edrych ar y mater yma, a dechrau ystyried a ddylai hyn fod yn norm drwy Brydain gyfan hefyd.

Heddiw, mi ydym ni’n gofyn i Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru ddweud ein bod ni’n credu mai dyma ddylai’r norm fod yng Nghymru, ar gyfer prosiect cyswllt y gogledd ar draws Ynys Môn a’r tir mawr, a phob prosiect arall. Cefnogwch y cynnig fel y mae o.