(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I too thank our committee team and specialist adviser for their excellent work on this report, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her leadership of the committee and her introduction to this debate.
As we have heard, digital technology has grown quickly since the pandemic. This has helped organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors to find a mix of home and office working that suits employers and employees alike. It is one of the most profound structural shifts in our labour market in decades. As one witness to our committee put it, the old office is dying and the new one is struggling to be born.
There are three closely connected issues arising from this report: industrial relations, the changing role of management and the implications for productivity. It is clear that we are moving away from the cult of presenteeism and morphing towards one that values what people deliver rather than where they work.
Expectations have also changed. Many employees now see some flexibility not as an optional perk but as a normal part of their job. When that flexibility is properly agreed, it can enhance trust and improve outcomes for both sides, but, where it is imposed or withdrawn unilaterally, it risks creating tension, disengagement and conflict. Indeed, a top-down return-to-office mandate can damage morale and retention when the lived experience of employees is ignored. It was a pity that the committee was unable to hear from businesses adopting a total return-to-office mandate, despite the Herculean efforts by the committee staff to engage with them.
We heard consistently that hybrid working succeeds or fails not because of the policy itself but because of how it is managed. That success relies less on physical supervision and more on greater clarity about objectives and outputs, as well as deliberate efforts to sustain team cohesion and culture. This is a fundamental shift in management practice, and many organisations are still adapting. It is a challenge as well as an opportunity, and there is a clear need for investment in management capability.
We heard that hybrid working should be designed intelligently, so that the time together is meaningful. It should, as one witness said, “earn the commute”. If done well, hybrid working can give people more control over their work, improve job satisfaction and support more effective use of time; if done badly, it can lead to isolation and loneliness, unclear expectations and a reduction in effectiveness. There are particular risks for younger workers, where opportunities to learn informally from colleagues may be diminished.
As has been said, the committee discovered a lack of current data on productivity, but the evidence from Professor Nick Bloom showed that hybrid working has now settled into a new equilibrium—typically two or three days in the office—and was associated with some productivity gains. These gains appear to come less from direct increases in output and more from improved retention, reduced turnover and a more efficient use of time, particularly through reduced commuting. These benefits are real but not a silver bullet. They are indirect and contingent and, again, if effectively managed, they can make a positive contribution to the holy grail of economic growth.
Hybrid working can also support wider labour participation, particularly for disabled people, those with caring responsibilities and older workers. However, these opportunities are uneven, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, has said. Many workers, especially on the front line, cannot benefit from location flexibility.
The committee heard about some unintended consequences. A parent working from home is physically at home but psychologically at work. The effects of those blurred boundaries are not yet fully understood.
Hybrid working is not just reshaping our workplaces but affecting our wider economy and society, in areas such as city centres, commuting patterns and transport systems, retail and hospitality, as well as highlighting the importance of good digital access, especially in rural areas.
Hybrid working is neither a cure nor a problem to be reversed. It is a structural change that brings both opportunities and risks. The task for Government is threefold, so I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. How are the Government supporting flexibility, with its benefits for individuals and the economy? How are they addressing inequalities, ensuring that those who cannot work from home are not disadvantaged? How are they supporting improvements in management and organisational practice, particularly in the public sector, because that is where success or failure will undoubtedly be determined?
How the Government answer those questions will affect not just whether hybrid working succeeds today but whether our labour market is ready for the wider changes to come. Although it was beyond the scope of our inquiry, the interaction between hybrid working and the growing use of AI will become increasingly important as we seek to build a modern, fair and productive labour market for the future.
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord with a specific answer to his question, but I can confirm that Alan Duncan, from the Department for International Development, was in Rakhine state in June, that my noble friend Lady Warsi was looking at the refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar shortly before that, and that British officials are very regularly in and out of Rakhine state.
Is the Minister aware that the Burmese Government refuse to allow the UN access to military sites so that it can identify and discharge children present in the Burmese army border forces, border guard forces and other armed groups? Following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in the issues that the noble Lord said were raised, there was no mention of any representations by the Prime Minister to the Burmese President during his visit about ending the recruitment and use of children, some as young as 11, as soldiers in Burma. Can he give an assurance that the issue was not overlooked during the visit?
My Lords, noble Lords will have seen the Written Statement issued yesterday on the visit. It does not specifically mention the issue of child soldiers, but it touches on a very large number of human rights issues. I will check and get back to the noble Baroness on the specific issue of child soldiers. We are monitoring the situation; we recognise, for example, that the Kachin ceasefire has been agreed but not yet fully implemented. The President promised, when he was here, that all remaining political prisoners will be released by the end of this year, and we will of course be watching to make sure that that promise is carried out.