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

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.