Group 3, the next group, relates to the requirement relating to ballot before action by trade union and removing definitions of devolved Welsh authorities. Amendment 3 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 3 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move amendment 3. This amendment, of course, refers to the 40 per cent ballot threshold for industrial action affecting important public services. We recognise the importance of trade unions as valuable institutions in British society and know that many dedicated trade unionists have a strong history of working hard to represent their members, campaigning for improved safety at work and giving support to their members when it’s needed. However, I believe it is only fair that the rights of unions are balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers who rely on key public services on a day-to-day basis—[Interruption.]

This isn’t a pantomime. This is the National Assembly for Wales undertaking a proper discussion and debate regarding a piece of legislation it may be about to pass. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you. With strikes having such a high impact on the normal lives of such a large group of people, it is sensible that strikes, when necessary, are backed up with an appropriate level of support from those involved. The UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016 sought to create workable legislation that is fit for purpose in our modern, fluid economic market. What we do not want to see is a small minority of union members disrupting the lives of millions of commuters, parents, workers and employers at short notice, and without clear support from the union members—a situation that has the potential to give unions a bad name in the eyes of the public.

Wales currently has 30 per cent of its workforce with trade union membership. This is far in excess of the UK average of 21 per cent and higher than that of England and Scotland. As such, the impact of trade union ballots will have more far-reaching consequences to this country, and we do need to consider the impact of this Bill on the everyday lives of people across Wales and the ability to deliver much-needed public services. The UK Government’s department for business, energy, innovation and skills data has found that the combined days lost in the sectors of public administration, defence, education, health and social work have accounted for the vast majority of days lost every year since 2008. These sectors remain at the forefront of our security, our well-being and our development, and therefore strike action must be equitable and democratic. As it stands, the Welsh Labour Government’s Bill proposals are neither of those things. As the law stands, the UK Government Act will provide tougher ballot thresholds that will reduce industrial action in important public services like transport, health and education by 35 per cent, saving 1.5 million working hours a year from strike action. Furthermore, the measures in the UK Government legislation will also provide a £10 million boost to the Welsh economy over 10 years. It will protect hundreds of thousands of people across Wales from the effects of undemocratic strike action. This amendment, therefore, will ensure that if strikes do go ahead, it will only be as a result of a clear, democratic mandate and decisions from union members, thanks to the introduction of tougher ballot thresholds.

Well, if I remarked in the debates on the two previous groups of amendments that the Tories just don’t get it, never has that been more true than in respect of these amendments on balloting. Maybe some of the Welsh Conservatives were brought up influenced by the Thatcher philosophy surrounding trade unions. You remember those nasty trade unions dominated by the unrepresentative barons whose only aim in life was to call out their members on strike for no good reason at the drop of a hat, all with a total disregard to the views of their members. Well, let me tell the Tories something that might interest them. Trade unions are simply organisations made up of workers coming together to protect their interests at work. And something else that might interest Janet Finch-Saunders is that those workers are also taxpayers. So, when the Tories attack trade unions, they are not attacking the union barons, they’re attacking ordinary working people who are doing nothing more than coming together in common cause.

Of course, trade unions are also amongst the most democratic organisations in the country. Let’s just look at how they elect their leaders. Trade union general secretaries are elected for set periods by one-member-one-vote ballots amongst their entire membership. And on the issues central to this amendment, balloting on industrial action involves every member of the union affected.

Amongst the uninformed Tory ranks, there is, of course, a myth perpetuated that trade unions actively seek to take their members out on strike. But it’s a complete fantasy to suggest that trade unions welcome calling strike action. I can tell you absolutely, from all my years, both as a lay activist and a full-time trade union officer, that I and other trade union colleagues would consider a failure if we ever had to resort to calling a formal industrial action ballot—a failure because all the work we did, day in and day out, working with employers to resolve difficulties, as outlined earlier, would not have worked. Industrial action is always, always the last resort.

Let’s then talk about the ballots themselves. If this amendment is passed, it would put in place a regime of ballot thresholds that don’t apply in any other democratic situation that I’m aware of anywhere in the UK outside of the Westminster Government’s Trade Union Act. And I challenge the proposer of this amendment to identify one.

Mike Hedges rose—

It certainly didn’t apply to the—

Are you giving way?

I beg your pardon; sorry.

Do you find it ironic that somebody who got 34.7 per cent of the vote in an election wants a 40 per cent ballot threshold?

I absolutely agree with you, and it was the very point I was just coming on to, Mike. Thank you very much.

The ballot thresholds, as we know, certainly didn’t apply in the EU referendum, which was without doubt the single most important issue that we have voted on in this country in our lifetime. And however close the margin in that referendum, and whatever the turnout, we all agreed that we must abide by the majority of those who voted. We did not say that the result should be invalidated by setting some arbitrary and spurious threshold, but that is what the UK Tories’ trade union Act does for workers balloting for industrial action. And that is what is being proposed in this amendment.

As I said when we debated this issue previously, we could take those dual standards a step further and observe that not a single Conservative Member would have been elected to this Chamber if the same threshold in the UK Act proposed in this amendment had applied to their election. And yes, the same would have applied to all other Members, as well as councillor colleagues who were elected back in May. Before June’s general election, there were only 25 Tory MPs that would have made it into Westminster on that threshold. Now, I confess to the fact that I haven’t checked to see that analysis of the general election on 8 June, but I’m hazarding a guess it won’t have improved much since then. The hypocrisy in this amendment, therefore, is quite breathtaking.

I commented earlier that most trade union organisers would consider it a failure if they had to resort to an industrial action ballot, but let’s go on to explore what happens with such ballots if a trade union does go down that route. All unions have vigorous procedures for approving any action arising from an industrial action ballot. They have to produce an inordinate amount of information to the employer about every member to be balloted, and once they get a result this requires a detailed analysis of the numbers of members who voted, alongside the majorities for or against. Every member gets the opportunity to participate in that ballot. It is their democratic right to choose to be part of that ballot or not, as is their wish. A factor on turnout is always that one of the difficulties is of the antiquated restrictions on methods imposed by previous Tory Governments in terms of how trade unions can ballot their members. But no trade union would ever embark on a programme of industrial action without the confidence that they are able to deliver it. What in fact normally happens under such circumstances is that a ‘yes’ vote for industrial action focuses the minds of all sides in any dispute on an agreed outcome, which, of course, should be the aim of any negotiations. What an arbitrary and potentially unachievable threshold would do is lessen the incentive for one of the parties to reach a negotiated settlement, which anyone with even a basic understanding would recognise as being counterproductive to healthy and constructive industrial relations.

Of course, I am a lifelong and committed trade unionist, so perhaps people would say, ‘Well, Dawn Bowden would say that, wouldn’t she?’ Well, okay, Llywydd, Members don’t need to just take my word for it. The UK Government’s regulatory policy committee deemed that these plans were not fit for purpose. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development called the UK Government’s proposals under its trade union Act ‘an outdated response’. It went on to conclude that Governments and employers building a better dialogue with their workforces was a better approach than draconian legislation imposing ballot thresholds. Peter Cheese, chief executive of the CIPD said

‘It’s time to start talking about prevention rather than cure when it comes to strike action and the public sector’s workforce challenges in particular. Taxpayers’ interests are best served by an efficient, engaged and productive public sector workforce.’

We need to see more consultation and ongoing dialogue and engagement with the workforce, rather than the introduction of mechanisms that reflect the industrial relations challenges of the 1980s. To jump straight to legislation and strike activity, without considering this, appears to be a significant step back. Of course, we already recognise that here in Wales we have avoided disputes—despite what Janet Finch-Saunders has said—we have avoided disputes in the public sector here through the working of social partnership in bodies like the council for economic renewal, the workforce partnership council, and the Wales Social Partners Unit. Why is it, then, that the Tories are unable to grasp what everyone else can: the need for a constructive and equal partnership framework for the conduct of industrial relations in our devolved public services? Are they just so blinded by an anti-trade-union prejudice that they will not listen to what all industrial relations professionals are telling them? Well, Llywydd, I know where I stand on this issue, and I’ll be voting against these amendments.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, in introducing this group of amendments, we heard the authentic voice of the Welsh Conservative Party. On the one hand: trade unions needing to be held down and tied up in complex rules and high thresholds to make sure that they do not wreak havoc in the lives of hard-working taxpayers. It’s exactly that sort of distinction—that setting of one group against another—that we are determined to resist in this Bill. Here in Wales, we have developed a social partnership model in which we recognise that the interests of trade unionists are identical to the interests of those people who rely on public services. That’s why we reject this sort of amendment.

Mike Hedges said that it was ironic that someone who themselves arrived in this place on a ballot that would certainly not have met the text set out in this amendment—it was ironic that it should be put forward in that way. I think it’s a bit worse than that, Mike. I think it’s deeply distasteful to hear people make an appeal to democracy and setting up standards that they themselves could not possibly aspire to meet. That’s true of many people in this room; it absolutely is. If the rules that this amendment sets out applied to you, you would not be a Member of this National Assembly. So, where’s democracy in that, I wonder? That’s why we need to reject this group of amendments. We need to reject it as well because of the conclusion that the committee came to: that, actually, when you introduce a spirit of confrontation into industrial relations, when you pit one side against another, then what you do is you make the risk that things will end up in industrial action rather than being resolved around the table—you make that risk more, not less. Here’s what the committee said:

‘We heard about the very real danger that the additional threshold would lead to heightened industrial tensions and have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood and duration of industrial action.’

That’s what these amendments would do. Far from protecting the public, they would increase the risk that we would be unable to conduct industrial relations in the successful way that we have achieved here in Wales. As with the other groups so far, these amendments deserve to be defeated.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Thank you. I’d just like to say to the Cabinet Secretary: if your social partnership has been so successful, why does Wales have the lowest pay, employment and prosperity levels in the whole of Britain? In its briefing for the original UK Government Bill, the House of Commons library found that, in 2015, Wales had the fourth highest amount of working days lost out of the UK regions—six per 1,000 employees. And as I stated earlier, estimations from the department for business, energy, innovation and skills indicate that the current UK Government Act provisions will save over 1.5 million working hours per year, boosting the UK economy by £100 million. It just baffles me why you would not want to see that success.

The CBI has also noted that the introduction of strike ballot thresholds does not contradict any UK-ratified International Labour Organization conventions, or undermine any EU rights. This is about ensuring the employee voice is democratically heard in industrial disputes. Too often, we see strikes go ahead on very low turnout, or with the support of a small proportion of the workforce. In 2014 thousands of schools were closed following a ballot that achieved a turnout of 27 per cent. In relation to political elections, voting to take part in strike action and voting in a general election or Assembly election are completely different. Everyone can vote for their MP or AM, while strikes affect everyone but the majority of those members of the public affected by strikes have no opportunity or no say to vote on whether the strike should take place. It is only fair that strikes should happen on a decent turnout.

Now, interestingly enough, the turnout at this year’s snap election was 68.7 per cent, well above the threshold that we are suggesting here. Llywydd, I don’t expect to see support from across the Chamber, given the exceptional amount of funding provided to certain parties by trade unions. However, I would hope to see Members rise above their own interests and such matters to vote in favour of fair and democratic strike action, which we believe is in the interest of all involved.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, and 43 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

Amendment 3 not agreed: For 12, Against 43, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 3.

Amendment 4—Janet Finch-Saunders.

I withdraw. [Interruption.]

Amendment 4 (Janet Finch-Saunders) not moved.

Amendment 5.

I withdraw. [Interruption.]

Amendment 5 (Janet Finch-Saunders) not moved.

Okay, okay, calm down.