Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026

Motion to Approve

That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.

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 almost all statutory trade union ballots must still be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way people live or work; it can be slower, more expensive and more administratively burdensome than modern alternatives.

The Government made a clear commitment in their Make Work Pay manifesto to modernise statutory trade union ballots by allowing secure electronic voting and workplace ballots. This instrument delivers that commitment. It introduces three additional methods of voting for statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots, which will be addressed separately in 2027. First, it permits electronic voting, allowing eligible members to cast their votes securely online using personal authentication credentials. Electronic voting will be available only when a union member has provided a personal email address or telephone number to the union. This ensures that voting materials are issued through personal channels and remain outside employer-controlled or union-controlled workplace communication systems.

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 Government are introducing workplace voting without a pilot and costed evidence of the likely impact on employers?

The impact assessment also states that the policy is expected to deliver net benefits overall, primarily through reduced costs to trade unions from the use of electronic balloting compared with postal methods, with estimated annual savings of between £2 million and £8.2 million. Why is reducing the administrative costs of trade unions now a priority for the Government? What is a small business meant to think when it reads that its margins are being squeezed by higher taxes and employment costs, regulation and endless compliance burdens yet it never sees this level of ministerial enthusiasm for reducing its costs? However, when it comes to trade unions, the Government appear willing to redesign statutory balloting rules to save them money and make industrial action easier to organise. That says a great deal about the priorities behind this order.

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 seriously. For unions, this will be addressed through the code of practice, and requirements such as ensuring scrutineers are Cyber Essentials Plus-accredited. I only wish that as stringent protection was required for company shareholder e-ballots, or indeed for e-ballots conducted by political parties—which have been running for years—given that the impact of any potential security breach for those organisations is at least as significant as for those conducted by trade unions.

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 implementation when parties are unfamiliar with the new rights and responsibilities. It is also important that the code strikes the right balance between principles and detail and is properly tailored to those who will actually use it.

For example, ACAS-administered voluntary ballots, particularly in recognition negotiations, are a useful tool in dispute resolution. We are grateful that, following feedback, it has now been confirmed that these are out of scope of the code. This underlines how the department has listened and amended the code to reflect the practical needs of users.

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 stop intimidation and to make ballots secure as to both process and the reliability of the result. These SIs risk beginning to undo that process. Workplace ballots obviously make potential intimidation of workers easier. We know that electronic voting is insecure. We would not do it in our own general elections. The Government’s own impact assessment is doubtful about the ability to provide security about such ballots. To add to that, trade unions themselves are made the responsible persons for such ballots, rather than independent third parties.

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 market”. We know what that is code for from the Conservative Party and former members of it. It is about making life tough for trade unions and for rank-and-file employees, who wish simply to exercise their democratic right to run their own free association in the way they want. The more we facilitate that, the better.

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 in this country, and 2 million of them vote for the Conservative Party. Noble Lords would be surprised at how seldom politics came up in the two unions of which I was president. The unions were about looking after the workers and their rights at work. A strike was not something looked forward to; a strike marked the fact that you had not managed to negotiate your way out of a problem. No one said, “Oh goody, let’s go and have a strike”. Most people said, “What else could we possibly do?”, and then it was done.