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

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.