So, once again, we’re faced with an amendment proposed that is about as predictable as it is ill-conceived, much like the previous three amendments. As I’ve said before, Llywydd, no trade union or its members lightly or enthusiastically embrace the need to take industrial action, but what you can be equally certain of is that no trade union official or member wants any dispute to drag on unnecessarily, and nor, of course, does any employer want that.

Llywydd, for trade unions, strike action, as I’ve said, is always the last resort. It’s a mechanism that more often than not will bring home to an employer that they are faced with a very real issue that they need to work with the trade unions to address. A protracted dispute will, of course, adversely affect an employer’s business, but it’s equally in the interest of the trade unions to address the issue in dispute as speedily as possible. It is neither in the interest of the union or its members to have members facing the financial hardship, which inevitably arises through loss of earnings whilst on strike. It is this mutual and equal interest that drives both parties to move towards settlement as soon as possible.

Where this balance is distorted, as would be the case if this amendment were to be passed, the incentive for an early resolution of the dispute would be removed, i.e. the dispute is not impacting on the employer, so the employer is less likely to engage constructively with the union to find a resolution to the dispute, which then turns into a protracted war of attrition.

What every employment relations professional understands, and what the Tories evidently don’t, is that in almost every case, there ultimately has to be a settlement of the dispute and a key component of any settlement was to always be how the parties intend working together in the future. This, of course, becomes much more of a challenge where a dispute has been a protracted one, as would inevitably be the consequence of the use of agency workers to strike break. So, from a basic industrial relations perspective, the amendment is just crazy, but there are further reasons for which I will be opposing it today.

The World Employment Confederation has recommended that agency workers should not be used to replace striking workers and in the UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which represents agency employers said, in respect of the UK Government’s proposals in this area,

‘we are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients’.

Finally, there are real concerns that putting inexperienced agency workers, in far greater numbers, into roles usually performed by a well-trained, experienced and professional workforce could seriously compromise both health and safety and standards of service. So, for the final time today, Llywydd, I will observe that we have a Tory party, driven by anti-trade-union prejudice, proposing legislation which flies in the face of opinion of professionals in the employment-relations field, and, therefore, I shall be voting against these amendments, along with the others submitted in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders.