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.