Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
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.
Secondly, the instrument permits hybrid voting. Under this model, members will receive their voting materials by post but may choose whether to return their vote electronically or by post. No one will be required to vote electronically if they prefer not to do so.
Thirdly, the instrument allows workplace voting for industrial action ballots. This option is available only when both the employer and trade union agree, and the ballot is conducted under the supervision of an independent scrutineer in a suitable secure workplace location. Workplace voting reflects the fact that industrial action ballots concern workplace issues, while maintaining the same statutory safeguards that apply to every other lawful ballot. None of these new methods is mandatory. Postal voting remains available. Trade unions will decide which lawful voting method best suits their membership. The purpose of these reforms is to extend choice, not remove it.
Alongside this instrument, the Government have laid a draft code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code provides detailed practical guidance on how these new voting methods should operate in practice. It complements the legislation by setting clear expectations on accessibility, administration, security and transparency.
I now turn directly the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The amendment raises concerns about ballot integrity, cyber security, verification, auditability, resilience and the operation of workplace ballots. I want to be clear that this instrument does not make industrial action easier to authorise without safeguards. It does not weaken ballot integrity, or ignore cyber security, verification, auditability or resilience, and it does not ignore the position of employers on consent, operational disruption, cost, privacy or security. The use of independent scrutineers remains mandatory. Cyber security certification for electronic methods, secure voter authentication and ballot secrecy are mandatory. Far from weakening confidence, these reforms strengthen participation while preserving the safeguards that Parliament has long regarded as essential.
This instrument brings statutory trade union ballots into the 21st century. It modernises the methods of voting without changing the fundamental principles of trade union democracy. It preserves the integrity, independence and secrecy that are essential in every statutory ballot. These are balanced, proportionate and carefully designed reforms. They make participation more accessible while maintaining confidence in the legitimacy of statutory ballots. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support both the instrument and the accompanying code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
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.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
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.
Secondly, the instrument designates the trade union itself as the responsible person for determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. The union has an obvious interest in the outcome of the ballot. Can the Minister therefore explain why the trade union rather than the independent scrutineer has been designated as the responsible person for determining the means of voting, and how they intend to avoid a conflict between the union’s interest in securing a mandate and its judgment on the practicality, accessibility, security and integrity of the voting method that has been selected?
Thirdly, who is responsible for enforcing the required cyber security standard? What happens if a system is compromised during a ballot and what information will employers be given if they are expected to assess whether a ballot mandate is valid? Paragraph 38 of the code of practice says only that the union “may want”—I stress, “may want”—
“to appoint the independent scrutineer as a first step”,
so that the scrutineer can advise on the balloting plan. That is not a hard-edged safeguard. It still leaves the initial strategic decision on whether to use electronic, hybrid or workplace voting with the union itself.
Paragraphs 39 to 41 are similarly weak on cyber security. They acknowledge that some ballots may be more sensitive, including where there is a risk of attempted interference, hacking or even hostile state activity. Yet the code says only that the union and the scrutineer “may want”—that phrase again—to seek advice from the National Cyber Security Centre. If the Government are serious about the integrity of electronic strike ballots, why is that advice optional rather than mandatory in sensitive ballots, in particular those affecting critical public services? Public sector employers have particular reason to be concerned. In hospitals, care settings, schools and other essential public services, the concern is whether staff can be released safely, whether patient, pupil or service user care is affected and whether safeguarding arrangements are maintained.
These instruments form part of the Government’s wider Employment Rights Act package. That package reduces the notice employers receive before industrial action, extends the life of mandates, removes previous restrictions and strengthens union access to the workplace, as well, of course, as adding billions in administrative costs. Taken together, these measures reduce employer flexibility and tilt the balance of power further away from employers, who are trying to maintain services, productivity and investment.
It is also striking that paragraph 9.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that these measures
“may improve participation and the representativeness of ballot outcomes”.
But this is in contrast with what Jonathan Reynolds said last year, which was that aligning the removal of the 50% turnout threshold with the introduction of e-balloting would
“ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 13WS.]
The removal of the 50% ballot threshold was set to happen in April this year, but it has not yet happened. I hope that is because even the Treasury has begun to understand the consequences that repeated militant strike action in critical public services would have for taxpayers, who would be forced to fork out millions for pay rises for the public sector—indeed, they already have. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government still intend to remove the 50% strike threshold, and if so, on what date will Section 68 be commenced? If Ministers cannot give a date, is that because they are concerned that removing the threshold, alongside electronic voting, would increase the likelihood of industrial action in schools and other public services?
The Government seem to have discovered a very selective enthusiasm for technology. Technology to help unions secure strike mandates is called “modernising industrial relations”, yet, according to recent reports, the new Prime Minister is considering scrapping Palantir’s work with the NHS, despite the fact that better data and technology are exactly what the NHS needs to improve efficiency, productivity and patient care, and in spite of the fact that it is widely reported to be working. At a time when critical public services, especially the NHS, need reform, investment and innovation, the Government should be backing technology that helps patients and taxpayers, not prioritising cartel behaviour from the BMA, which has warned that it will behave more militantly in the future. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
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.
The instruments in themselves do not change strike ballot thresholds or substantive legal tests, although of course this should pave the way for repeal of the 50% threshold which the Employment Rights Act ties to the introduction of e-balloting. Any update that the Minister can provide on how soon this will be progressed would be welcome.
It would also be helpful to have clarity on when phase 3 is going to happen and what could come from it. For example, unions want to be able to send ballots safely and securely to members’ workplace emails. Around a third of union membership databases can include workplace email addresses, so that change could help maximise participation too.
Finally, I would welcome reassurance from my noble friend the Minister that the extension of e-balloting to union recognition ballots will take place as early as possible in 2027.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
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.
Finally, although we welcome the increased participation in decision-making that the code will deliver, we urge parties to keep their focus on resolving disputes through partnership—and, of course, ACAS conciliation services are just a phone call away.
Sadly, the latest ACAS research shows that 44% of people experienced conflict at work in the last year. This has a cost to businesses, individuals and the economy—in stress, time off, presenteeism and many more effects. Your Lordships have previously discussed the fact that the number of employment tribunal cases is rising, causing a growing and unacceptable backlog of hearings. There are clearly rising levels of discontent and unhappiness in workplace relations.
ACAS already provides training and guidance on working effectively with trade unions, but we need to do more. So I hope my noble friend the Minister will say what more could be done to encourage parties to prevent and manage disputes so that the need for ballots does not arise. I hope he agrees that where disputes do arise, the parties should be encouraged to make use of ACAS collective conciliation services, or other informal resolution, rather than resorting too quickly to a ballot. I look forward to his response.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
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 imagine the Minister will point to other organisations that have used such methods—the Conservative Party, the National Trust, financial services institutions, and so on—but I suggest gently that such organisations do not have the same record of questionable behaviour, bullying and threats that unions have done from time to time. We know that happened in the 1980s but it did not happen only then. There are credible reports of such threats during the Post Office dispute in 2022-23; the Birmingham bins dispute, where the High Court itself was involved; and many other such cases. This is the problem with bringing insecurity into strike ballots. We risk bringing back some of the forces that made problems for this country in the 1980s and which we have not seen much of in the past 20 or 30 years.
I finish with some questions for the Minister. Does this record not give him any pause for thought? He is a very successful businessman himself: does he not worry about some of these consequences? Does he not worry, since most unions are in the public sector nowadays, that these rules will come back to bite the Government at some point very soon? Why, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked, have pilot arrangements been rejected? Finally, when we look at the unemployment figures over the past year or so, does the Minister not have any qualms about what has been done with the Employment Rights Act—the additional costs to labour in this country? Would it not be better for him and the Government to think again while they still can?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
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.
Lord Balfe (Con)
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.
Mention has been made—I will repeat it—of the huge number of people who use balloting to elect people. I served as the finance chairman of my own club, the Reform Club, for some years. I was elected by a postal ballot, but people could also vote electronically. No one ever raised any questions about whether it was fair, because it manifestly was.
I say to this House: get real about trade unions. Two million of their members vote for the Conservative Party. They do not believe they are joining some insurrectionist left-wing party; most of them believe they are trying to improve their standards at work.
Finally, if you ask our union what the most popular services are, they will tell you: free legal advice and motor car insurance policies being reduced. That is the reason why lots of people join the unions. Long may they last. I say to the Conservative Party: please do settle down and come into the real world.
Lord Fox (LD)
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 in place to deal with that. The Employment Relations Act 2004 already contains the necessary legal requirements to guarantee that ballots are cast in secret and free from intimidation. That is a starting point.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, came up with a rather long list of potential disasters that could befall an electronic vote. Perhaps his regular experience with Tory party leadership online elections has made him suspicious or sensitised him to this issue. In this case, his list of concerns for union votes fails to recognise the provisions in the order for any union to consider a number of important safeguards: ballot security and secrecy—that was kind of what he was talking about—risks associated with each voting method; members’ preferences; accessibility; and equal opportunities to vote. Those are the issues we have discussed today. To be honest, I think that debunks a lot of what the noble Lord spoke about.
I also refer him to the “Monitoring and Review” section of the draft Explanatory Memorandum, which sets out some of the safeguards. Paragraph 10.2 states:
“Monitoring of the use and effects of non-postal balloting will also contribute to the Government’s wider consideration of participation”.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, the issue around the 50% turnout—which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, brought out—is dependent on the Government laying a report on the process of electronic balloting. Paragraph 10.1 mentions
“monitoring this legislation … through ongoing engagement with key stakeholders and existing … oversight mechanisms”.
The noble Lord seemed to imply that this has just been cast into the workplace and there is no regime for covering it; I do not accept that, and it is wrong.
In sum, the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, were raised at an earlier time, and I believe that some of the measures in this order have come, as I recall, as a result of some of his interventions during that earlier debate—it is both a long time ago and yesterday. I leave this with your Lordships: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has a few regrets, but I do not think he needs to regret this order.
Lord Leong (Lab)
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 50% threshold for industrial action ballots. To be clear, the order does not repeal that threshold, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also mentioned that. To commence Section 68 of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Secretary of State must first lay a Statement before Parliament. This must set out how he has had regard to the impact of electronic and other non-postal voting methods on participation in industrial action ballots. The instrument delivers on our commitment to permit electronic and workplace balloting. The review of their impact on participation will then follow and inform the repeal of the 50% threshold.
My noble friend also asked about the use of workplace email addresses. Following implementation of the instrument, we plan to establish a senior oversight board, comprised of key stakeholders, to help assess how the new voting methods are working in practice and consider future enhancements, including the secure use of workplace email addresses. As it stands, we are not doing that now.
My noble friend also raised recognition and derecognition ballots. We are committed to extending electronic and hybrid voting to the Central Arbitration Committee-run recognition and derecognition ballots as part of phase 2 of delivery. We will deliver this as soon as practicable in the second half of 2027.
I will now turn to the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. On workplace balloting, employers will not be forced to allow workplace voting. It can take place only where an employer agrees. Employers remain free to consider operational disruption, privacy, security and practical arrangements before giving that agreement. The union will continue to bear the cost of running the ballot itself, with no cost to the employer.
On the role of the responsible person, in practice this will be the trade union. That is because the union is best placed to understand its membership and communication methods when deciding the appropriate voting method or methods. It would not make sense to outsource this role to a third party, who will not have the information to make this determination.
I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that this decision is not unfettered. The instrument sets out clear factors and criteria that must be applied before a voting method can be chosen. On cyber security, responsibility rests with the independent scrutineer. Scrutineers conducting electronic ballots must hold a valid Cyber Essentials Plus certificate for the networks and systems they use, and I have personal knowledge of how laborious it is to apply for the Cyber Essentials Plus certificate. It is something that one has to go through, and it is quite rigorous in its application. They are also responsible for operating the platform securely and ensuring that the legislative requirements are met. There will be extensive audit logging and monitoring throughout the ballot, and any security incident must be recorded. If the legislative requirements are not met, the union will not be able to rely on that ballot, and it must be rerun. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Lord.
I want to be clear about what the order does: it steps away from the current bureaucratic and expensive requirements that all statutory union ballots must be held by post. It will bring the voting system for trade union ballots into the 21st century, and it delivers this change in a manner that ensures secure, secret and safe balloting. It will not, as we have heard today, weaken the safeguards relating to industrial action ballots. It will not weaken ballot integrity, and it will not leave questions of cyber security, verification, auditability, employer consent and costs unanswered.
Lastly, as I have already made clear, workplace voting can take place only where the employers agree. Employers remain able to consider operational disruptions, privacy, security and practical arrangements before giving that agreement. This is an overdue reform.
Before I conclude, I will touch on a couple of points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about organising a pilot. It is not necessary to pilot workplace balloting for statutory union ballots. The instrument is informed by detailed engagement with key stakeholders, including businesses, cyber security experts, unions and independent scrutineers, as well as public consultation on the draft code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots.
The noble Lord also asked about cost, and I did mention that there is no cost to the employer. The Government expect that individual unions will determine which voting arrangements best meet the operational needs and will bear the cost themselves.
The noble Lord also touched on the doctors’ strike. The Government will continue to engage closely with the BMA, ensuring that the NHS remains a place where doctors can develop rewarding and long-term careers. The Government are committed to building on the good progress that has already been made, cutting waiting lists and continuing to improve conditions for the staff who make their NHS work, in partnership with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, made a point about pressure and intimidation. The Government fully recognise the importance of protecting members from any undue influence. That is why the statutory safeguards governing ballot conduct remain in place, regardless of the voting method. The company code of practice provides guidance on maintaining ballot secrecy and integrity, and independent scrutiny remains an important safeguard throughout the process. This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards, ensuring the integrity and confidence of the ballot process while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them.
I conclude by wishing all noble Lords who will not be here tomorrow a fantastic, restful Summer Recess.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
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, unfortunately, a lot of the activities that this Government have put through have made that very difficult. This point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, perhaps inadvertently. The fact is that the 44% of employees who are experiencing discontent are the lucky ones—they have jobs. Let us not forget the 14.8% of NEETs whom we heard about yesterday in the latest statistics.
Finally, I and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, found common cause in two areas. She can probably think of only one, which was Section 68. I am very pleased that she agrees with me on that and am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I think he said we will hear more about this in the second half of 2027: if I am wrong, perhaps he could correct me. The other area the noble Baroness and I agreed on was how important democracy is—which is why it is such a shame the new Prime Minister has taken power after a bloodless coup.
It is very late. I do not see the point in having a vote. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.