Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 8th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:29
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Before we start, I suggested to everyone that ladies and gentlemen, can remove their jackets in this heat. Um. So is it the wish of the committee that the draft order and the draft code be debated together?Yes. Minister to move the first motion and speak to both the draft order and the draft code. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally. I call Minister Dearden to move the first motion.
14:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Hey. Thank you. Mr. president, it's a pleasure to serve under your chair this afternoon. I beg to move that the committee considers the draft trade unions permissible means of voting and employment rights. Unfair Dismissal Amendment Order 2026 and the Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for statutory trade union ballots. These were laid before the House on the 22nd of June 2026. The instrument and guidance that we are debating today relate to statutory trade union ballots and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.
The instrument also corrects a minor error in relation to unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect the changes made in the Employment Rights Act 2025. Present. The law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. This approach has not kept pace with the way people live, work and participate in democratic processes. Today. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union.
This statutory instrument addresses that directly. It brings trade union balloting into line with modern, secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In doing so, it delivers on a government manifesto commitment to support greater participation in democratic processes that shape working life. The changes we are making are practical, and they are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in ways that are more accessible and convenient, whilst maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation.
This instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting alongside post. First, electronic voting, allowing members to cast their votes online using secure access credentials. This will only be permitted where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union. Second, hybrid voting, where members receive voting materials by post but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically. This will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voters to use online options if they would prefer not to.
And third, workplace voting for industrial action ballots only where voting can take place in person under the supervision of an independent scrutineer at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Postal voting will, importantly, remain available. This instrument expands the range of voting methods that can be used. However, postal voting will remain an option for unions to use if they choose. The government is committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly and securely, and in a way that properly works in practice.
That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery as part of phase one. These new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with exception of statutory recognition and recognition ballots. We will then, as part of phase two, extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and de-recognition ballots. Alongside this, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how these voting methods are operating in practice. As part of this, we intend to launch a Senior Oversight Board in the coming months comprising of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cybersecurity experts who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting.
By allowing these additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy. Alongside this order, we have laid a draft statutory Code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code provides detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that these methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible.
The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and supports a consistent approach across ballots. I now want to turn to the question of security and safeguards, which I know will be of interest to the committee and provide reassurance to members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence, and that is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we provide for section 54 of the Employment Rights Act 2004.
The enabling power by which we are making these changes already set clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet these standards, namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised. Order and the code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. These include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems that are used.
For electronic and hybrid balloting, this includes requirements relating to the protection of voting information, the security of voting systems, and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide these methods. Similarly, there are clear requirements built into the workplace option as well, and workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for infrastructure ballots, reflecting the fact that these relate to workplace matters rather than internal union processes.
And workplace voting can only be used where both the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of voting in advance of any ballot where it. Is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with the detailed requirements to ensure the process remains secure and free from interference. This statutory instrument is absolutely essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, ensuring that workers are provided with the accessible, straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It removes the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way ballots union's ballot to finally reflect the technological progress of modern life, while at the same time holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them.
This is a measured, proportionate and long overdue reform chair. This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards, ensuring the integrity and confidence of the ballot process while making it meaningful, easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend this instrument and the accompanying code of practice to the House, and I trust that members will support them. Thank you.
The instrument also corrects a minor error in relation to unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect the changes made in the Employment Rights Act 2025. Present. The law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. This approach has not kept pace with the way people live, work and participate in democratic processes. Today. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union.
This statutory instrument addresses that directly. It brings trade union balloting into line with modern, secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In doing so, it delivers on a government manifesto commitment to support greater participation in democratic processes that shape working life. The changes we are making are practical, and they are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in ways that are more accessible and convenient, whilst maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation.
This instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting alongside post. First, electronic voting, allowing members to cast their votes online using secure access credentials. This will only be permitted where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union. Second, hybrid voting, where members receive voting materials by post but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically. This will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voters to use online options if they would prefer not to.
And third, workplace voting for industrial action ballots only where voting can take place in person under the supervision of an independent scrutineer at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Postal voting will, importantly, remain available. This instrument expands the range of voting methods that can be used. However, postal voting will remain an option for unions to use if they choose. The government is committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly and securely, and in a way that properly works in practice.
That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery as part of phase one. These new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with exception of statutory recognition and recognition ballots. We will then, as part of phase two, extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and de-recognition ballots. Alongside this, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how these voting methods are operating in practice. As part of this, we intend to launch a Senior Oversight Board in the coming months comprising of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cybersecurity experts who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting.
By allowing these additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy. Alongside this order, we have laid a draft statutory Code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code provides detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that these methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible.
The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and supports a consistent approach across ballots. I now want to turn to the question of security and safeguards, which I know will be of interest to the committee and provide reassurance to members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence, and that is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we provide for section 54 of the Employment Rights Act 2004.
The enabling power by which we are making these changes already set clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet these standards, namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised. Order and the code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. These include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems that are used.
For electronic and hybrid balloting, this includes requirements relating to the protection of voting information, the security of voting systems, and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide these methods. Similarly, there are clear requirements built into the workplace option as well, and workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for infrastructure ballots, reflecting the fact that these relate to workplace matters rather than internal union processes.
And workplace voting can only be used where both the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of voting in advance of any ballot where it. Is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with the detailed requirements to ensure the process remains secure and free from interference. This statutory instrument is absolutely essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, ensuring that workers are provided with the accessible, straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It removes the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way ballots union's ballot to finally reflect the technological progress of modern life, while at the same time holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them.
This is a measured, proportionate and long overdue reform chair. This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards, ensuring the integrity and confidence of the ballot process while making it meaningful, easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend this instrument and the accompanying code of practice to the House, and I trust that members will support them. Thank you.
14:37
14:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It was a great pleasure to serve on this committee. It's a great pleasure, as always, to see you in the chair and pleasure to see the honourable lady as well. I'd like to thank her for the explanation that she's offered of the government's intentions when it comes to the order before us. It's important to make clear from the outset that whenever we debate secondary legislation, we should always remember that it's essentially a balancing act, and in this case, a balance between modernising participation in trade union democracy and ensuring the safeguards, protecting the integrity, security and fairness of statutory ballots.
Keep pace with the methods used to conduct them. These aims are not mutually exclusive, and it's our job to ensure that we get this right. To this end. It won't be a surprise that I have another set of questions for the honourable lady, and I hope that she'll be able to provide some answers for us today. Firstly, on the new voting methods introduced by parts one and part two of this order. As the honourable Lady said in her opening remarks, this instrument permits electronic, hybrid and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots for the first time.
Paragraph 5.14 of the minister's own explanatory memorandum explains the government's reasoning against a pilot for electronic balloting, but I couldn't see any equivalent justification for workplace balloting, which the impact assessment contained in the memorandum confirmed has not been costed. So can the honourable Lady explain why workplace voting, specifically an entirely new voting method, will be introduced through this order without a pilot or without costed evidence. Secondly, on page two, the government confirms that trade. The trade union itself will be the responsible person determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots.
So can the Minister explain why the trade union itself has been designated the responsible person for its own ballots, rather than, for example, an independent scrutineer?Proposed setup, how does she seek to avoid a conflict between the Union's interest and the ballot outcome and its judgement on the practicality and the security of the method being used. Thirdly, paragraph 9.9 refers to a requirement for scrutineers electronic systems to be independently audited and certified. Minister clarify which body specifically is responsible for enforcing that standard, and what happens if a system is found to be compromised or fails that certification process.
Paragraph 9.2 gives an estimated annual savings ranging from £2 million to £8.2 million, depending on the level of take up, which is confirmed in paragraph 9.3 as unknown. Why such a wide range?It's a massive range, from 2 million to 8 million. Is there not a clearer estimate of the likely take up of these new methods?As I said, they said in their documentation that this is unknown. Paragraph 10.3 confirms that a statutory review clause is included in this instrument.
So when will that review be taking place and what criteria will be used to judge whether the new voting methods have operated safely and operated fairly?And finally, the law firm Morgan Lewis has warned that this instrument, in their words, may reduce the scope for successful challenges based solely on procedural irregularities. So what is the minister's reaction to Morgan Lewis and their statement?And can she confirm whether the government accepts that this narrows employers practical routes to challenge a ballot's validity. Validity, validity.
Overall. Madam chair. This order forms part of the wider Employment Rights Act of 2025, which we in the official opposition have consistently said has damaged jobs and opportunity across our country. It is my party's long standing and long held policy, therefore, to oppose any parts of this legislation that we believe hands unions sweeping powers. And as I've highlighted today, there remain real questions about the process that has been used to bring this instrument forward for. These clear reasons.
We will be voting against the measures today. Thank you. Thank you.
Keep pace with the methods used to conduct them. These aims are not mutually exclusive, and it's our job to ensure that we get this right. To this end. It won't be a surprise that I have another set of questions for the honourable lady, and I hope that she'll be able to provide some answers for us today. Firstly, on the new voting methods introduced by parts one and part two of this order. As the honourable Lady said in her opening remarks, this instrument permits electronic, hybrid and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots for the first time.
Paragraph 5.14 of the minister's own explanatory memorandum explains the government's reasoning against a pilot for electronic balloting, but I couldn't see any equivalent justification for workplace balloting, which the impact assessment contained in the memorandum confirmed has not been costed. So can the honourable Lady explain why workplace voting, specifically an entirely new voting method, will be introduced through this order without a pilot or without costed evidence. Secondly, on page two, the government confirms that trade. The trade union itself will be the responsible person determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots.
So can the Minister explain why the trade union itself has been designated the responsible person for its own ballots, rather than, for example, an independent scrutineer?Proposed setup, how does she seek to avoid a conflict between the Union's interest and the ballot outcome and its judgement on the practicality and the security of the method being used. Thirdly, paragraph 9.9 refers to a requirement for scrutineers electronic systems to be independently audited and certified. Minister clarify which body specifically is responsible for enforcing that standard, and what happens if a system is found to be compromised or fails that certification process.
Paragraph 9.2 gives an estimated annual savings ranging from £2 million to £8.2 million, depending on the level of take up, which is confirmed in paragraph 9.3 as unknown. Why such a wide range?It's a massive range, from 2 million to 8 million. Is there not a clearer estimate of the likely take up of these new methods?As I said, they said in their documentation that this is unknown. Paragraph 10.3 confirms that a statutory review clause is included in this instrument.
So when will that review be taking place and what criteria will be used to judge whether the new voting methods have operated safely and operated fairly?And finally, the law firm Morgan Lewis has warned that this instrument, in their words, may reduce the scope for successful challenges based solely on procedural irregularities. So what is the minister's reaction to Morgan Lewis and their statement?And can she confirm whether the government accepts that this narrows employers practical routes to challenge a ballot's validity. Validity, validity.
Overall. Madam chair. This order forms part of the wider Employment Rights Act of 2025, which we in the official opposition have consistently said has damaged jobs and opportunity across our country. It is my party's long standing and long held policy, therefore, to oppose any parts of this legislation that we believe hands unions sweeping powers. And as I've highlighted today, there remain real questions about the process that has been used to bring this instrument forward for. These clear reasons.
We will be voting against the measures today. Thank you. Thank you.
14:43
14:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. And I thank the Shadow Minister for his remarks and questions. And. What this order addresses today is a very, very simple issue that the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today and has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That's why the range of options that I outlined in my opening remarks, as the shadow Minister alluded to, began to online hybrid and workplace balloting is absolutely necessary to book ballots by post was out of a legitimate need to guarantee.
Secrecy and protection from union. Third party or employer interference. But the principles are not reduced by this instrument. They're in fact improved upon in many cases. So to his to his first point regarding the methods chosen, obviously electronic balloting has been well established option for businesses and political parties, including his own, for many years. And as we committed in our manifesto and prepare to deliver modern, secure electronic and workplace balloting, that's really clear in our commitment and in our wider work agenda, and we're pleased to have progressed on this work and why today.
It's really welcomed that we're laying this legislation, and it is a shame that, unfortunately, the opposition party aren't able to support it because we have engaged with stakeholders, we've worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering these balloting methods for statutory union ballots, and we're confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy, enables that increased participation for union members, while still ensuring the high standards of security. And to his to his wider reflections on the varied options that have been taken. And particularly, he mentions a review.
We will, of course, be able to keep him updated as we proceed with the wider Scrutiny board and as this legislation is enacted going forwards. And that is really important because we want to make sure that every single measure within our Make Work Pay and Employment Rights Act ultimately works in practice, in workplaces and across the country, and particularly for trade unions. And that leads me to a second point around the responsible person and independent scrutiny. The responsible person, as the shadow minister alluded to, is a person who is to decide which voting method or combination of methods will be used to conduct statutory ballots, and that responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors that are specified in the legislation and the code of practice.
When determining the method of combination of methods to be used to conduct a ballot. And of course, if the union is then demonstrating and acting on that ballot, they are the best placed person to decide how and what that combination must be, which is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballots, and we're making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Rights Act 2004, and section 54 requires that a new method may only be permitted if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard, and that requires standard is such that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so.
That those cuts are secret. The risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised to the powers used to make. Sorry. Yeah.
Secrecy and protection from union. Third party or employer interference. But the principles are not reduced by this instrument. They're in fact improved upon in many cases. So to his to his first point regarding the methods chosen, obviously electronic balloting has been well established option for businesses and political parties, including his own, for many years. And as we committed in our manifesto and prepare to deliver modern, secure electronic and workplace balloting, that's really clear in our commitment and in our wider work agenda, and we're pleased to have progressed on this work and why today.
It's really welcomed that we're laying this legislation, and it is a shame that, unfortunately, the opposition party aren't able to support it because we have engaged with stakeholders, we've worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering these balloting methods for statutory union ballots, and we're confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy, enables that increased participation for union members, while still ensuring the high standards of security. And to his to his wider reflections on the varied options that have been taken. And particularly, he mentions a review.
We will, of course, be able to keep him updated as we proceed with the wider Scrutiny board and as this legislation is enacted going forwards. And that is really important because we want to make sure that every single measure within our Make Work Pay and Employment Rights Act ultimately works in practice, in workplaces and across the country, and particularly for trade unions. And that leads me to a second point around the responsible person and independent scrutiny. The responsible person, as the shadow minister alluded to, is a person who is to decide which voting method or combination of methods will be used to conduct statutory ballots, and that responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors that are specified in the legislation and the code of practice.
When determining the method of combination of methods to be used to conduct a ballot. And of course, if the union is then demonstrating and acting on that ballot, they are the best placed person to decide how and what that combination must be, which is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballots, and we're making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Rights Act 2004, and section 54 requires that a new method may only be permitted if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard, and that requires standard is such that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so.
That those cuts are secret. The risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised to the powers used to make. Sorry. Yeah.
14:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'm very grateful. Specifically on the responsible person. I just want to press on this. And she did seek to address my my question. Can she see the the logic that I'm trying to deploy here, which is the question as to why a trade union itself can be designated a responsible person and not an independent Scrutineer does she see how it possibly opens up questions as to whether that process is independent?And did she go through the process of thinking about an independent scrutiny to avoid that criticism?
14:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention, as I was just getting on to in terms of the powers that we're using for this instrument and regarding the responsible person and why trade unions are therefore, um, will be required as the responsible person to because they are the best place to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot methods. And we've gone through the range of options that will be available. And that choice, as I mentioned, needs to include postal voting. Despite that not being a new method.
Um, however, as I've mentioned, we have included a presumption in the legislation that reduces the factors and the criteria to be considered for post, for example, to reflect that this is a long established method that members will already be familiar with. And of course, trade unions know that and know how to best, best approach it. And there are, for example, that the responsible person, however, must not be aware of any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relates to voting methods which are to be used in the ballot or the election.
And that, of course, has been made clear to the trade unions as being conducted as a responsible person and a range of other options that they must consider. So that is really clear in communicating to them their roles and responsibilities as a responsible person. And of course, he knows, um, the responsibilities for independent scrutineers that will continue going forward. And the role that they will, they will play, um, as part of this, this legislation, um, an independent scrutiny is moving on to that point because I know he did ask about this, um, are either named in or meet the requirements of the trade union ballots and Elections order 1993, which sets out the clear requirements of who can be a scrutineer.
The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years. Who and we are confident in their independence and in the coming months we will progress work to update the trade union ballots and Elections Order 1993 to expand the list of name permitted scrutineers and, if he's interested in, be kept updated with of course, be happy to do so. Um on that particular work strand, um regarding this point around the impact assessment, addressing the primary impacts of introducing electronic balloting, which include up to £70 million of net present social value and including the introducing the new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices that many other organisations have.
I've alluded to numerous times, including political parties, to private companies regularly use. So requiring them to pilot these balloting methods would be an unnecessary restriction on their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected. And we don't have any reliable evidence to suggest that electronic balloting will absolutely increase the frequency of the participation. That's why we're reviewing this is really important to understand how it does work out and play across different workplaces and trade unions, using the range of balloting methods that are open to them and that range in costs.
Estimates varies, as it will depend on the uptake of those differing balloting methods, as electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or personal mobile numbers, unions will need to gather this information from their members before they commence. This. Order. Uh, chair details and I hope you've heard real operational audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods that move well beyond those that are required for postal voting. This has been done to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting.
And we've developed those clear, secure, proportionate approaches to enable the conduct of statutory ballots by means other than post this legislation. I hope you've heard that is being carefully considered. Engaging with stakeholders to ensure that the legitimate concerns that stakeholders have raised of security or of interference are managed, whilst also ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remains central to the balloting process and it requires stringent process to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting that will ensure the integrity of the ballot remains unquestioned.
And as I've mentioned before, this change is long, long overdue, and I'm pleased that the government is the one to finally bring forward this legislation, to modernise these processes. And with that, I believe I've answered all the questions posed in this debate and look forward to the House's support of this instrument and associated code of practice, and beg to move that this is I and code of practice as approved. Hey.
Um, however, as I've mentioned, we have included a presumption in the legislation that reduces the factors and the criteria to be considered for post, for example, to reflect that this is a long established method that members will already be familiar with. And of course, trade unions know that and know how to best, best approach it. And there are, for example, that the responsible person, however, must not be aware of any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relates to voting methods which are to be used in the ballot or the election.
And that, of course, has been made clear to the trade unions as being conducted as a responsible person and a range of other options that they must consider. So that is really clear in communicating to them their roles and responsibilities as a responsible person. And of course, he knows, um, the responsibilities for independent scrutineers that will continue going forward. And the role that they will, they will play, um, as part of this, this legislation, um, an independent scrutiny is moving on to that point because I know he did ask about this, um, are either named in or meet the requirements of the trade union ballots and Elections order 1993, which sets out the clear requirements of who can be a scrutineer.
The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years. Who and we are confident in their independence and in the coming months we will progress work to update the trade union ballots and Elections Order 1993 to expand the list of name permitted scrutineers and, if he's interested in, be kept updated with of course, be happy to do so. Um on that particular work strand, um regarding this point around the impact assessment, addressing the primary impacts of introducing electronic balloting, which include up to £70 million of net present social value and including the introducing the new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices that many other organisations have.
I've alluded to numerous times, including political parties, to private companies regularly use. So requiring them to pilot these balloting methods would be an unnecessary restriction on their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected. And we don't have any reliable evidence to suggest that electronic balloting will absolutely increase the frequency of the participation. That's why we're reviewing this is really important to understand how it does work out and play across different workplaces and trade unions, using the range of balloting methods that are open to them and that range in costs.
Estimates varies, as it will depend on the uptake of those differing balloting methods, as electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or personal mobile numbers, unions will need to gather this information from their members before they commence. This. Order. Uh, chair details and I hope you've heard real operational audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods that move well beyond those that are required for postal voting. This has been done to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting.
And we've developed those clear, secure, proportionate approaches to enable the conduct of statutory ballots by means other than post this legislation. I hope you've heard that is being carefully considered. Engaging with stakeholders to ensure that the legitimate concerns that stakeholders have raised of security or of interference are managed, whilst also ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remains central to the balloting process and it requires stringent process to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting that will ensure the integrity of the ballot remains unquestioned.
And as I've mentioned before, this change is long, long overdue, and I'm pleased that the government is the one to finally bring forward this legislation, to modernise these processes. And with that, I believe I've answered all the questions posed in this debate and look forward to the House's support of this instrument and associated code of practice, and beg to move that this is I and code of practice as approved. Hey.
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:14