Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 22 Jul 2026 · 18 speeches · Official Report
Motion to Approve
Moved by
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 June be approved. Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
My Lords, I shall also speak to the accompanying Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots. I also note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and I am glad of the opportunity to debate these important reforms. I will address the concerns raised by the noble Lord during my remarks. This statutory instrument and the accompanying code of practice were laid before Parliament on 22 June 2026. This instrument has a clear and straightforward purpose. It modernises the statutory framework governing certain trade union ballots by allowing secure electronic voting and workplace ballots, while preserving the integrity, secrecy and independence that are fundamental to every statutory union ballot. Alongside these reforms, it makes a minor consequential amendment to Section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that the legislation remains consistent following the changes made by the Employment Rights Act 2025. These are measured and practical reforms that update how statutory ballots may be conducted. They do not alter the legal framework governing industrial action or trade union democracy. The legislation governing statutory trade union ballots was developed in an era when postal voting presented the most practical way to conduct nationwide ballots. That is no longer the world in which we live. Today, people routinely undertake secure and sensitive transactions online. Yet, under the current law...
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order introduces electronic and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots which risks making industrial action easier to authorise without sufficient safeguards for ballot integrity; that it does not provide adequate assurances for cyber-security, verification, auditability and resilience against interference for electronic voting; and that its workplace-voting provisions do not address employer consent, operational disruption, cost, privacy or security.”
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining and introducing the statutory instruments, to the first of which, as he has noted, I have tabled a regret amendment. The instruments risk making it easier, quicker and cheaper for unions to secure a mandate for strike action, while leaving too many questions unanswered about ballot integrity, cyber security, workplace disruption, employer costs and the ability of employers to challenge defects in the process. I want to start by asking the Minister a number of very specific questions. First, paragraph 5.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the Government’s reasoning against piloting electronic balloting. Whether or not one accepts that reasoning, at least the Government have attempted to explain their approach. However, I do not see the equivalent justification for workplace balloting. Workplace balloting is an entirely new voting method for industrial action ballots. It creates practical questions for employers about space, security, access, staff release, supervision, privacy, CCTV, safeguarding, operational disruption and cost-I could go on. Yet, as I understand it, the impact assessment does not even cost workplace voting, nor has there been a pilot to test how it would operate in real workplaces, particularly not in complex environments such as hospitals, schools, care settings, secure sites, manufacturing sites, multisite operations and shift-based workplaces. Can the Minister therefore explain why the...
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. However, I oppose the regret amendment and support these measures, which bring statutory union balloting into the 21st century, modernising an outdated postal-only system. Our primary purpose must be to make it easier for members to participate in their own union democracy. Higher turnout strengthens workers’ collective voice and ensures that votes are more representative of the membership. All democrats should welcome these reforms; they have been a long time coming. Back in 2016, the then Conservative Government commissioned a review from Sir Ken Knight on union electronic balloting. However, the then Government never published a response. Even Sir Ken’s report acknowledged that a postal-only system disproportionately disenfranchises people with mobility disabilities and visual impairments, as well as young members, who are much more likely to rent and change address more frequently. It also disadvantages significant groups of union members who spend long periods working away from home, such as offshore energy workers, seafarers, lorry drivers, cabin crew and air pilots, and construction and creative workers. So, I have no doubt that, in an age when we increasingly live our lives online, and, particularly post Covid, when growing numbers work online too, this reform will widen democratic participation. Of course, it is right that concerns about cyber security and audits regarding e-ballots are taken very...
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of ACAS, as set out in the register. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed introduction to these two SIs. As we know, these proposals are part of the rollout of the Employment Rights Act reforms, which are being introduced in line with the road map published at that time, and there has been detailed consultation and stakeholder involvement in shaping the code of practice. ACAS has also been closely involved with DBT officials to shape that code. So, there has been plenty of time for employers and unions to prepare for these changes and they do not contain any surprises. In fact, in a recent YouGov survey, 62% of employers reported feeling very or fairly confident about the upcoming changes to trade union rights, with only 21% not feeling confident. These proposals bring the balloting regime into the modern age, with the provisions for electronic, hybrid and workplace voting being similar to decision-making in many other areas, including political parties and shareholder votes. So we welcome the fact that this SI will enhance the democratic process and increase participation, giving employers and unions more confidence that the outcome fully represents the views of those consulted in the ballot. It has been important to ACAS that the code uses clear, plain and unambiguous language. This reduces the potential for misunderstandings, non-compliance and disputes, particularly at the early stages of...
My Lords, I support the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The strength of this country over the past 20 or 30 years has been in its very flexible labour market. Those of us, like me, who have, from time to time, managed staff in European labour markets know what the difference is: endless consultation, inflexibility, disputes and reluctance to employ people. The significant role for social partners and trade unions is a big part of that. Now we are bringing that home to this country and we already see the effects in the employment statistics. The SIs that we are debating are just the latest phase in that. They obviously build on what was done in the Employment Rights Act: the extra rights for trade unions, which have been much debated and I will not go into now, but include the extra right to workplace access, easier recognition, rights for union officials on employer time and, of course, lower thresholds for ballots of all kinds, including strikes-which brings us to today’s SIs. As we heard from the Minister, the main thing that these SIs do is extend the types and arrangements of ballots that can be carried out before a strike. This is presented-indeed, the Minister did present it-as modernisation of the system. Whether deliberate or not, the effect is going to be to make it easier for politically motivated union officials to make strike action happen. The trade union reforms of the 1980s were brought in for a reason, as were postal ballots. It was to...
I need to declare an interest because yesterday morning, in the post, I received my ballot paper for the election of the general secretary of my union. I looked at it. Of course, I will be voting -I will not tell your Lordships for whom-but it seemed absurd that I could do it only by post. I can pay my income tax online. I can tax my car. I can book airline tickets. I can pay my gas bill. I can-regrettably-pay my speeding fines. I can vote in building society elections. I can check I am registered to vote-so online is involved in elections. I can apply for a postal vote. I can correspond about any responsibility I have to participate in jury service. I can undertake DBS checks-highly sensitive, highly secret. I can do all these things online, so why does this particular ballot that I have on my desk at home have to be done by post? Famously, gamblers have a “tell”-someone blinks and you can tell what is happening. The Opposition have kindly put their tell in the amendment and in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. What they are against is the exercise of democratic rights by free associations. They want to make it harder, they want to slow it down and they want to make it more expensive. That is the tell. This is antiquated, old-fashioned anti-trade union prejudice. That is at the heart of it, and that is what we learned from the noble Lord’s speech. I will comment briefly on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He talked about a “flexible labour...
My Lords, I have been a trade union member for just over 67 years. That is longer than my membership of the two political parties put together. For the past 13 years, while I have been in this House, at different times I have been the president of the British Dietetic Association-a TUC-affiliated union-and BALPA, the pilots’ union, which is also TUC-affiliated. The image that people try to give that these are somehow illegitimate organisations is totally wrong. Most of their executive time is spent sorting out the day-to-day problems of members-that is what they are there for. The debate over balloting has gone on for years. Both unions of which I have been president, and the union of which I am a member, have suggested to government that we should sit down and find a way out of this problem. We have not had any encouragement at all. At the time of the 2016 Act, David Cameron almost conceded that there would be a consultation, but it never happened. The fact is that it has become more and more time-consuming and costly for unions to stay within the law. I asked the Certification Officer’s office whether it had had any complaints about balloting procedures; it could not produce any. All it would say to me is that the Certification Officer’s job is to uphold the law, not to make it, and that he was satisfied that the law had been upheld. Where are we going to go? I suggest that we could try to get a more realistic view of trade unions. There are about 5 million union members...
My Lords, today has been “Frank Sinatra day”-regrets, there have been a few-and we are thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for this last one; it is the last but by no means least. It seemed a short time ago that we were discussing the issues raised by this order in the Employment Rights Act 2025, but when I look at the calendar, I see that it was nearly a year ago-I guess it still looms large in my life. To an extent, this debate is something of a rerun of what we discussed then. In that spirit, I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats believe that free association is a fundamental right, and that of course includes the workplace. Employees should be free to join, or not to join, a trade union, and they should not face penalties either way. To participate in a union and to associate freely, there needs to be votes from time to time. The Government’s urge to update the process of voting is entirely sensible and one that we support. As we have heard, this order extends the possible ways of voting. As I expected and as we have heard, some noble Lords have set out concerns about coercion. I fail to see how changing the voting system would change the level of coercion. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, used, whether rightly or wrongly, have happened when there was no electronic voting; that has nothing to do with the issue of coercion. As I understand it, if there is coercion-I am sure that in some cases there is coercion, as in every form of life-there is an Act...
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support across the House, especially from the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Fox, for the Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 and the Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots. Today’s scrutiny and debate have been constructive and light-hearted, at some points. Noble Lords have raised interesting points on dispute resolution, workplace ballots and the next phases of delivery for the measure. They have also raised points on the 50% threshold, intimidation and dispute resolution, as I mentioned earlier. I will address these points briefly. First, I will respond to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch on dispute resolution. Industrial action should always be the last resort. It is costly for workers, employers and the wider public. That is why the Government are committed to a new era of partnership. We want employers, unions and government to work together, through co-operation, negotiation and meaningful engagement at workplace level. We intend to develop a new overarching industrial relations framework, working with stakeholders, such as employers and unions, to promote partnership, reduce conflict and support productivity and growth. That is a noble ambition. I will now respond to the points raised by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the...
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister, who actually answered my questions. I hope that that is not a bad sign. Is that a bad sign? I think that we should be told. That was a spirited and enjoyable debate, and I thank everybody who took part in it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, because he said that the Liberal Democrats believed in free association. I am delighted to hear that they believe in something; it is a first. The noble Lord also made parts of my arguments for me. I will not labour the point, but he referred to the consideration of various safeguards, as opposed to the enactment of them. That was precisely the point I was making and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating it. I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for his insights on the unions. I am particularly intrigued by the free legal advice, which I fear I may need fairly soon if I carry on like this. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, made some excellent points about historical context, and we should pay attention to him. The Minister did not say whether he had been given pause for thought, but perhaps we can discuss that outside the Chamber. One thing that seemed to be said on the other side of the House about this side of the House is that in some way we are against the exercise of democratic rights and that we are interested in making life tough for people who are in unions. I assure the House that that is not the case; what we are pro is making jobs and,...
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.