Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trafe Union Ballots
Debate between Kate Dearden and Gareth Davies(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.
The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.
The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.
That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.
We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard
“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”
Gareth Davies
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
Kate Dearden
I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.
We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.
However, the responsible person must not be aware of
“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”
That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.
Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.
We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.
The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.
As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.
Question put.
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots
Debate between Kate Dearden and Gareth Davies(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.
The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.
The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.
That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.
We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard
“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”
Gareth Davies
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
Kate Dearden
I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.
We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.
However, the responsible person must not be aware of
“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”
That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.
Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.
We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.
The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.
As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.
Question put.
Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Debate between Kate Dearden and Gareth Davies(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Thank you for chairing, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for arriving late—I was confused about whether there was another Division in the Chamber. I thank the Government Whip for stepping in and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, for his remarks.
The regulations build on legislation from the previous Government, and we have worked really closely with the sector, which is an important driver of growth in the UK. Great holidays bring so much joy to consumers all over the country, and our reforms are all about strengthening the package—which the hon. Gentleman touched on—for the travel framework, ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from strong protections, while clarifying those obligations to ease the burdens on business, supporting the sector and supporting a healthy and thriving economy.
The shadow Minister asked a couple of questions that I will respond to, first on the cost and the impact on businesses. The policy will deliver a net benefit to business of £19 million over 10 years, with £98 million in costs outweighed by £117 million in savings. The analysis considered a range of sources, including feedback from the consultation.
The best estimate we can point to from published analysis is from the 2023 impact assessment of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, as the hon. Gentleman might know. That analysis estimates that 13,979 UK businesses sell packages. I hope that provides him with clarity on the costs.
Gareth Davies
Can the Minister clarify whether she has met any businesses since taking office in this specific industry, and not just relied on the 2023 piece of work?
Kate Dearden
We have expressed our intention for the regulations to come into force on 6 April 2027. These regulations are commencing next year to give businesses almost a year to implement the changes, and they have been aware of these changes since the Government response in December.
We have been working closely with industry to develop guidance and will continue to do so in the coming months. Officials have already conducted engagement and consulted on the regulation at pace. It is really important for these changes that we work closely with the industry and that it welcomes them. We want to make sure we work closely with the industry on that guidance.
The shadow Minister also asked about the 14-day refund period for businesses. Travel organisers are required to refund consumers within 14 days of cancellation, but sometimes that will be because of a failure from a third party. Introducing a 14-day refund period for businesses from those third parties will create more certainty for travel organisers, helping them to manage cash flow and recover costs. That covers most of his questions, but I am happy to answer any more if he has any. Otherwise, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026
Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
Debate between Kate Dearden and Gareth Davies(5 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and his support for the Act and the regulations we are considering. The regulations place the CTSI on a statutory footing. I alluded in my introductory remarks to the role of the Secretary of State and the accreditation determinations, monitoring, enforcement and information sharing under the Act, as well as the mandatory and accreditation requirements.
In terms of exempt ADR providers, to avoid duplicated regulatory provision, the Act exempts ADR provision under several ombudsmen and equivalent schemes, which are already regulated under other legislation. Those are either statutory bodies performing statutory functions or redress schemes regulated by other bodies under other legislation. If a sector already has its own dispute resolution system, these new ADR rules will not apply and that avoids doubling up regulations and ensures that businesses follow only one set of rules, with no confusion about who is responsible.
There are also some statutory bodies that, to an extent, carry out ADR and it is not considered appropriate to regulate them as their remit does not cover consumer contracts as defined in chapter 4 of part 4 of the 2024 Act.
I am happy to follow up the hon. Member’s point about the specifics on the statistics afterwards if he requires any further information. On the effect of schedule 25 listing exempt ADR providers, that is quite clear, but again, if he would like further information on how we are avoiding duplication, I am happy to provide it as there is a power to add further exemptions in future, which might be used where it is more appropriate to regulate ADR elsewhere.
The important point about the legislation is that it will ensure that ADR is much easier for consumers and businesses. That is really important to reflect on. What ADR can provide in terms of support and streamlining for businesses and consumers is significant, and will offer a cheaper and faster alternative for consumers and businesses seeking to resolve disputes, compared with making a claim to the courts. This framework gives the flexibility to update those standards over time. That is important and provides a foundation for considering further reforms if required.
Gareth Davies
I totally understand that the Minister might not have the information to hand right now, so will she commit to writing to me?
Kate Dearden
Yes, I am happy to provide that follow-up information.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT DIGITAL MARKETS, COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS ACT 2024 (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026—(Kate Dearden.)