Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, found the Government’s position inexplicable such that these amendments have become necessary. I can understand that. The point is that the Government do not—they do not understand finance. Perhaps they should have had a few more prawn cocktails before the election; they might have got some learning inside them. This group demonstrates that there is ignorance in this Bill about investment, asset classes and asset allocations.

New Section 28C(5) treats private equity as if it is just one class, but it is not. That is why I welcome Amendment 121, specifically proposed new paragraphs (f) and (g), which would lay out the appropriateness of scale-up capital and quoted and unlisted companies.

There is no doubt that you can make a lot of money in private equity. High risk leads to high rewards; the big hitters can and do make money. The early backers of Revolut turned a million into a billion, as the FT reported last week. On that basis, everybody should be having a go. What could go wrong? We all know that, in many cases, companies get loaded with debt and dividends are extracted; we have ended up with serial bankruptcies in the casual dining sector, for example, and Claire’s has gone bust twice in the last four months. I am not exactly sure the Government should be mandating this sort of thing by statute.

Putting that to one side, I have some experience through my membership of the Norfolk Pension Fund in private equity investment. I have been a board member since 2007. There are some big firms in this space; HarbourVest might be a name familiar to noble Lords but others are available, as it says in the adverts.

To participate in this space, you typically enter a 10-year commitment for quite a lot of money as a fund. You provide the fund manager cash certainty. He can go ahead and acquire smaller firms within the fund. You do not pony the money up front necessarily; it just needs to be available when the fund manager calls you to chip in. By and large, the fund manager finds the firms and invests that money, typically over the first four years of the indicative 10-year period. They then grow and nurture those firms until they can be sold for a profit—unless they go bust in the meantime, which many do.

At some point, 10 to a dozen years later, after all the surviving companies have passed on and the fund closes, all the money is returned to the pension fund. It is a well-trodden path and a proper asset class. This is why proposed new paragraph (g) in Amendment 121 is so important. These opportunities should be available to pension funds, but the Bill as currently constructed excludes them. It is madness. This is not what we need as a nation.

We need to go further. We need to be able to step in and help those founder-owned companies, together with local business angels, their families and friends, to get to the stage where HarbourVest can have a nibble. We need to make the small nibbles into larger fish. It is the scale-up issue. The exam question here is to identify good founder-led businesses locally and grow them. I declare an interest; I have been a director of New Anglia Capital Ltd, which was public sector, 100% owned by councils in Norfolk and Suffolk for the purposes of investing in early stage companies, taking them from a glint in the eye to the stage at which private equity might get involved. My goodness, it is hard. We have invested in bright prospects in life sciences, engineering, medical technology and clean energy. It is high risk, and I am told it carries the opportunities to make big returns—not that we have found them yet. But at least it carries that opportunity. As a nation we need to turn those cygnets into swans and those small acorns into mighty oak trees. The Bill should aim to do that, but it does not.

The conflict is with the press release that accompanied the Mansion House announcement. The Government’s own presser boasted:

“More than 50 scale-up businesses have signed a joint letter to the Chancellor welcoming the reforms as a ‘significant milestone in ensuring British institutions back British businesses at the scale required to generate growth, employment and wealth’”.


I feel sorry for the people who signed up that letter, because they were suckered. The Bill does little to scale up businesses and it has taken the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to put proposed new paragraph (f) into the amendment so that the Government’s own press release can form part of the law.

Forcing everything to be large, as we have heard, makes it harder to get the boost for start-ups. Amendment 121 would remedy this. We need it not just for those start-up businesses: the founders, their families and friends and all those angels—important though they are. We need it for our provincial cities and market towns. These are the places with the gems that need to grow in pursuance of

“UK growth assets rather than wider overseas assets”,

as it says in the Member’s explanatory statement.

Without this amendment, Mansion House is a mirage. By this Bill the Government have done a confidence trick on those who believed there would be a flow of capital to these businesses. It is not too late to change course. I echo strongly the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, and note that we are in Committee. I think this Committee is doing valuable work, because it has set up the conversations we all need to have between now and Report. The Government can reflect on what they are trying to achieve and recognise that it will not be achieved by the Bill as currently constructed. We may then need to have a compromise that will actually do the thing we are here to do, which is to invest in Britain and have better, more secure futures for people who want to invest in pensions, not Lego sets or Star Wars characters.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for her forensic analysis of both the Mansion House Accord and the ways in which there is a significant mismatch between what is in that accord and what is in this Bill. I confess that I was not aware of the extent of that, so that analysis is really important; I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I would like to comment on whether investments in listed securities should be excluded; here, I will part company with many of my colleagues on this side of the Committee. I understand why they are excluded. It is because buying and selling shares in listed companies is just buying and selling a financial asset. The buying and selling of shares in UK-listed assets does nothing to put money into the UK economy.

However, the way in which this measure is drafted probably goes too far, because it is possible that companies could raise new capital—for the purpose of investing in some of the things where the Government wish to encourage new investors—and that those vehicles could be listed. The way in which the Government have approached this is possibly too extensive, but I certainly do not think that the simple buying and selling of financial assets aligns with getting productive investment into the economy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, knows, I do not think that is a valid objective for this Bill—certainly not one that should override the need to get good returns for savers.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I want to comment briefly on Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, where he seemed to characterise the need to have members in the room alongside employers and trustees. He seems to forget that trustees’ responsibility is to act for the members. The members are fully part of the negotiation through the trustees. I personally do not agree with his amendment requiring formal consultation, as with some of the existing listed changes to pension schemes. But there was a good reason why the release of surpluses was not included when that legislation was first drafted, and I have seen no reason to change that.

My Amendment 42 is rather unlike other amendments in this group, which is why I spoke in the previous group and probably should have asked for my amendment to be grouped there. I reiterate my remarks in that group on the importance of the interests of the sponsoring employers, who have for the most part provided the funding which has now led to the surpluses emerging, which is the subject of these clauses in the Bill. My Amendment 42 simply says that regulations made under new subsection (2A) of Section 37 of the 1995 Act may not replace restrictions on employers once surpluses have been paid to them.

The DWP’s post-consultation document on the treatment of surpluses said:

“Employers could use this funding to invest in their business, increase productivity, boost wages, or utilise it for enhanced contributions in their Defined Contribution (DC) schemes”.


The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to that being used elsewhere as a justification for these new release powers. I agree that they could use it for those things, but there are also other things that they could use it for. For example, they could use it to fund a reduction of prices in the goods and services they sell to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The thing that concerns me in particular is whether the funds are used to pay dividends or to make a return of capital, because companies have shareholders and that would be a fairly normal use of surplus funds. My key concern is that the Government would use the power in new subsection (2A) to specify that employers could not use the money in the way they chose, and in particular in relation to dividends and share buybacks.

I completely understand the Government’s desire to see more investment, but holding money within the company might be the economically illiterate thing to do. Businesses make investments in assets, productivity or people if they think they have a reasonable prospect of making a return. They do not invest because they happen to have some surplus cash lying around. If they cannot be reasonably sure of making a decent return themselves, the right thing to do is to return the money to the shareholders and let the shareholders recycle that into other investment opportunities which make a reasonable return. That is why low-performing companies are often under pressure to return capital to the shareholders. In the context of the whole economy, that is the sensible thing to do, because it gets capital to the right place in the economy. Therefore, I hope the Minister can reassure me that new subsection (2A) will not be used to restrict what companies do with the surpluses extracted from pension schemes.

The Minister made some quite helpful remarks in the first group about the Government not telling people what to do with the surpluses, but I hope she can be specific in relation to the use of the power in new subsection (2A) that that would not be used to restrict what companies can do.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her assertion that members’ interests are already taken into account on many trustee boards. In fact, all but the very smallest schemes have procedures and requirements to appoint member-nominated trustees. It is almost so obvious that it is hardly worth saying, but it is the truth. It is the job of the member-nominated trustees, not the unions or the members themselves, to represent the interests of that cohort. Even the local government scheme has arrangements whereby the needs of the employers and the employees are balanced, so it is not just a question of the private schemes; all schemes have those balances as a principle, and that is entirely appropriate.

I am disappointed to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I felt we got on so well in the previous two days in Committee, but, on this occasion, I part company with him. I do not think his amendments are needed, because of the existence of that member-nominated trustee class. It is their job, and if the members do not like it, they can get another one.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I endorse everything that both speakers have said about understanding more about the use of this power. I want to go back to the Explanatory Notes. They say that Clause 6 amends Schedule 3, et cetera,

“to clarify that, in the case of the LGPS, the responsible authority’s powers also include the power to make regulations”.

That implies that the Government believe that this is a declaration of an existing power. If that is the case, can they explain why they feel it is necessary to put Clause 6 in this Bill? Can they also explain the history of mergers with the involvement of the regulatory authority and what problems, if any, have led to the need to insert this in Clause 6? As the noble Lords who have spoken said, it looks like a very draconian power to be taking and yet the Explanatory Notes imply that they already have the power. It would be useful to have some more background.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 6, as your Lordships have just heard, includes the powers to merge funds. It is a slim clause, so I will be briefer than you might expect, but I want to ask the Minister what the circumstances are in which these powers would be used and to what end the Minister would require the compulsory merger of funds.

On Monday, when we debated the earlier groups, I pointed out that the country’s smallest fund, the Orkney fund, has the best performance of all the funds in the LGPS. I think that there are lessons to be learned from that—and, furthermore, it has never changed its investment manager. What would happen if the two funds happen to be in different asset pools? What steps would be taken to indemnify the losing and the gaining members and taxpayers for the quite exceptional transition costs in these circumstances? You would be ramming some schemes together, having split them asunder beforehand.

In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, we will shortly contemplate local government reorganisation. I do a bit of work on this and I can certainly contemplate that mergers of councils across county boundaries could be contemplated. With Wiltshire already unitised, it is not unthinkable for Swindon to be placed either in Oxfordshire or perhaps in Berkshire. Paradoxically, the efficiencies of merging councils under LGR may result in the demerging of pension funds to different pools. What discussions have been had and what contingencies have been put in place as Ministers start to take decisions on local government reorganisation?

Going back to scheme mergers, can the Minister tell us whether similar criteria have been published, as with LGR, and how we would consider comparing the relative merits of different proposals for schemes merged? Having announced that schemes are candidates for merger, it is not unthinkable that several competing bids may come forward: “We want this particular scheme”, or rather, “We don’t want that particular scheme, for all sorts of reasons”.

What criteria might be published so that, on an evidential and neutral basis, the decisions can be justified? Are we going to consider population size, assets under management, the number of members, the cost per member, or geography? That is important, because under the earlier parts of the Bill a scheme may be a member only of a single pool, and those pools have become geographically focused, because there are provisions, if the Bill is enacted, for the schemes to connive with their local strategic authorities. You can see straightaway that there could be a mismatch between the host strategic authority and its pool, which may not be local.

This is a small clause, but with big consequences. Following a merger, how might decisions be taken as to which successor authority would be the administrating authority? That begs the LGR question of which authority will assume the pension administration if all the councils in that territory have been abolished. How will we ensure that appropriate governance structures are in place so that all parts of the disaggregated territory are appropriately represented? We see this in local government, at parish council level when two parishes come together. So that not all the members of this community council come from one parish and none from the other, there is a process of warding: the representatives on the board must be distributed from among the previous constituent authorities. What steps might be taken in that case?

I do not think that this clause has been thought through at all. If I think of the Norfolk scheme for a moment, of which I have been a board member since 2007, we have over 100,000 members and I am sure that they would all want to know who is going to be sending P60s, helping with IHT valuations and answering questions. I have previously complained about the length of the Bill, but this shortest of clauses may have the biggest impact. It will directly impact up to 6.7 million workers in our nation, so I support my noble friends because, without the detail that I, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and other Members who have spoken, have asked for, Clause 6 is inadequate and cannot and should not stand part of the Bill as currently constructed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Your Lordships will be pleased to know that peace has broken out again: I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, and I do not accept the characterisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, laid out in full.

I have sat on five triennial actuarial revaluations of the Norfolk scheme over 20 years, and I can tell noble Lords that we are not unique. We agonise over how we deal with the valuation over months. We look at the assumptions, the different types of employer and the different scenarios that we might realistically use. There is a fan of opportunities that the actuaries run; I would say a thousand or a very substantial number—many hundreds—of different potential scenarios based on membership of the scheme, the sponsoring employers and even the life expectancy per member calibrated by postcode, using the Club Vita methodology. Of course, we think primarily about governance as well.

To a certain extent, if that is going on, one might ask why we need these amendments at all. We do because, as those of us who are involved in the LGPS know, brighter days ought to be ahead after some pretty tricky periods over the last 20 years. But just because the sun is coming over the horizon today, it does not mean it might not set in the future. A Bill like this will have longevity, so we need to get it right rather than be overly optimistic. Overoptimism is the counter to excessive prudence.

I support many of the amendments in this group, but I will start with Amendment 18. I have seen schemes with valuations in the low 70s, when interest rates were low, but some schemes are now funded well into the 130s or 140s. We have heard today about a scheme that is funded 150%. Without excessive prudence, more of them might have been in that bucket.

The sums of money for these fluctuations are enormous. For a mid-sized county scheme with £5 billion under management, 10% could still be £0.5 million—a large sum that can go a long way. So there is a temptation to trim employer contributions when times are good, safe in the knowledge that there is still a substantial cushion to fall back on. I have no problem with that as a principle: after all, when times were bad, employers had to chip in a lot more, so it is only fair that there is a two-way street and hoarding is no good to the member, employer or taxpayer when there is a bypass to pay for.

The problem is how you apportion that rebate or discount to the members if there is a surplus. When times were bad and more contributions were needed, the contribution rate was calculated differently for each employer depending on the maturity of that scheme, the number of members of the employer, the covenant strength of the employer and their individual deficit and funding position. Clearly, a tax-raising council, which does most things itself and can jam-spread those changes over many employees, will have a lower contribution rate for the deficit than a largely contracted-out services authority with much fewer staff. That is why one authority that used to employ a lot of people, but had to let them go by outsourcing most of their services to private contractors, has a contribution rate of 50% on salaries. That is a huge sum of money. However, a well-run council like my own—we do most things ourselves—was in the 20s. That is not unfair; it is just the arithmetic.

As an aside, I would say that outsourcing is all very well but, as the litany of failed outsourcers has shown—Carillion, Connaught, Mears, Steria and many more—when they go bust, those pension liabilities come boomeranging back to the host council that thought it was being smart but was not. One city not far from where I live has had to learn that painful lesson on more than one occasion. At least those councils that are tax-raising bodies, with ratings typically one notch below sovereign, can stand those shocks.

Let us consider one class of admitted body: the academies, which are admitted to the scheme of local government workers for their classroom assistants. There are maybe only a few per school, but they benefit from a Department for Education underwriting. That is a pretty good state-backed guarantee there. They may not be able to raise taxes, but their liabilities are gilt edged. However, when you then think of the small youth work charity which could go bust tomorrow if its local authority cuts its funding, there is a risk there. My point is that all the employers play a different contribution rate within each scheme that relates to their circumstances. That is for one scheme, but there are 89 such schemes, each with their own circumstances. Yes, it is untidy, but matching assets and liabilities to the exact and precise needs of those cohorts provides the best value to the taxpayer and accuracy in computation. So, when you add or take away those contributions, if you are in surplus, the value of the rebate can be calculated accurately.

I am not just trying to be difficult; I am just providing the reality of the situation. To focus on Amendment 18 for a moment, which requires the repayment of surpluses, it is a good proposal, but we need to allow for a much greater degree of complexity there. I hear what my noble friend has said, and there is a specimen number of 120% there. My instinct is that it is significantly more complicated than that, and there should be some sort of covenant-strength weighting—a hard-coded number is not right. Different schemes need different numbers. The underlying principle that, when the surplus gets to a certain amount, there should be a rebate is sound, but I am just really concerned that we overly simplify it and miss the target there.

We certainly need to be aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned in an earlier group, about the cost cap, and be aware of the situation, which is mainly in the statutory unfunded schemes, where valuations are split between the employer and employees. I was a member of the fire services scheme, an unfunded scheme, and we nearly got into the situation in 2018-19 where there was an excess and we had to take money away from the employees; then in 2023, I think it was, or possibly four years later, it was going the other way. Mercifully, it was so complicated that nothing was done, so we ended up where we were. Just the cost cap in and of itself is a blunt tool. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Each scheme needs its own methodology for its own circumstances, and, of course, there are four separate actuarial companies in competition, so there is innovation which we must welcome—it is invidious to mention their names; some of us know who they are. They get their fees by constantly becoming more and more accurate and refined, and that is a good thing, not just for them but for the taxpayer, the members and employers. So, we need to have that combination of flexibility, but I can see the virtue of standardisation, or at least a standard method of expressing those particular schemes on a common basis so they can be consistently compared, so that my good friend Roger Phillips—who is newly OBE-ed, for the record—can publish his scheme advisory board census annually.

I have explained why each scheme needs its own bespoke valuation, but that does not help Roger. And, in the non-LGPS schemes, the GAD—the Government Actuary’s Department—provides figures because they are a provision for risk sharing between government and members, and so forth.

Amendment 19, and to a certain extent Amendment 17, on benchmarking, are important, but they cannot be the substitute nor override for bespoke measures in each scheme. In the case of benchmarking, the amendment would have been strengthened had we been able to look at cost per member, and there are other metrics too which can help people develop confidence in the schemes.

It is in the public interest that the amendments are accepted. Just because brighter years are ahead—we hope—does not mean that there is no value to these amendments. We need to allow for circumstances when those silver linings may have clouds again, to mix metaphors. I do not want to dilute the thrust and importance of the statutory funding objectives for the LGPS, because it ultimately provides a method by which we can balance appropriate risk with reward for each of the scheme members and the taxpayer who underwrites it all in the end—and that is a good way of doing it.

To a certain extent, the thrust of these amendments would put on a statutory footing the work that the LGPS advisory board does on a voluntary basis. That would be a very good thing for transparency and confidence, demonstrating further the success that is the local government scheme in this country. It is the closest thing that we have to a sovereign wealth fund, and anything that improves its standing has to be a good thing, so I commend this set of amendments.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I shall just comment on Amendment 19. To summarise what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, there are actuaries’ reports that have all this information, and actuaries understand those reports. Amendment 19 concentrates on publishing something in a form accessible to employers and the public, and I think that that is very important, because actuarial practice is quite difficult to understand sometimes. It cannot be assumed that a member of the public could understand actuarial language. We need to be able to communicate in a way that is accessible to the people who actually bear the costs of the local authority pension scheme—the council tax payers. I do not think that that is met by the actuaries’ reports, which doubtless comply with all kinds of standards issued by the FRC and long-standing actuarial practice but, in my limited experience of looking at these things, are pretty difficult to understand.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I do not think that I said that it was okay if actuaries understood the report even if no one else did. I have in front of me the last valuation report from the pension panel of the London Pensions Fund Authority. I have been looking through it and I think that it is a wonderful example of presenting difficult actuarial information in a way that is understandable to any member of the fund who is prepared to put a modicum of effort into understanding it. The report starts with a very clear and concise executive summary, picking out the important points, then goes through all the issues that need to be explained, around levels of prudence and why particular assumptions have been made. It is all in there, with lots of appendices alongside if you want a deep dive into the detailed data.

I do not think I said that these reports were understandable only by actuaries; these are big commercial organisations which support their clients by providing information in an accessible manner. That is part of their job and it is what I always tried to do when I was a scheme actuary. The feedback that I received was that people were pleased to understand what was happening to their money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I speak as the vice-chair—former chairman—of the Local Government Pension Committee, the body that represents the employers’ part of the LGPS in the scheme advisory board. I welcome this set of amendments because it gives us an opportunity to place on record the breadth of what it takes to run a pension scheme: not just the sexy bits—investment and all that sort of stuff that you might read about in the Financial Times—but the real boilerplate of operating a scheme for nearly 7 million people.

It is wise to put on record some of the nuts and bolts that hold that boilerplate together. It is not just about risk management, governance, data quality, member engagement or the huge dashboard project. There are benefits statements, which have to be calculated accurately of course, within timeframes, and engaging with the department—I see in the Box some faces that I recognise in that respect. It is about advising on bulk transfers in and out, AVCs, commutation, tax, survivor benefits, McCloud, GMP, the exit cap, ill health adjustments and subject access requests—to name a small subset of about 100 different activities that pension fund administrators undertake. There is interpretation of regulations and helping software providers to keep up with the torrent of regulations so that pensions can be paid to the beneficiaries accurately and in a timely manner.

This work often encompasses helping bereaved families at a difficult time in their lives to navigate changes in benefits, inheritance tax and so forth. It is also a very important part of it that the scheme works together to train up a new generation of administrators alongside engaging with the Local Government Association, their Welsh colleagues, COSLA in Scotland and the Northern Irish scheme. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of these people engaged in these activities, and when you meet them you realise the fragility of the behemoth that is the LGPS. I pay tribute to their dedication, which is completely unsung, which ensures that the promises made to local government workers are kept and will be kept.

All those things that I have mentioned the Bill is silent on, which is a real shame. While it is not the purpose of a Bill to enumerate every single detail, more could have been said about the breadth of the work that is involved in running a pension scheme, which goes beyond fund management. These amendments from my noble friend seek to right that wrong, and I commend them.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, without wishing to take anything away from what my noble friend Lord Fuller has just said, it is true that this definition of management relates to the funds and assets of the scheme, not the totality of the operation of everything that is managed within a scheme. Having said that, non-exhaustive lists are always problematic. However, the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Younger is crucial to the management of assets, and its absence seems strange to me.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am a great fan of international competitiveness and growth objectives for regulators. When the first one was introduced for financial services regulators in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, I thought it was an incredibly important addition to the way regulation of financial services is undertaken. Just last week, your Lordships’ Financial Services Regulation Committee issued its report on how that international competitiveness and growth objective is working, and I commend it to noble Lords.

I support what my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has said about applying the duty to the Certification Officer, but I invite him to consider whether there is a much more important area where such a duty should be applied in this Bill, which is to when the Secretary of State makes decisions about, for example, the enforcement provisions or making the various regulations that we know are necessary to make Part 1, and indeed other parts of the Bill, operate effectively.

The most important aspect of the Bill is going to be driven by what the Secretary of State does once it is enacted, but there is not an equivalent requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account the needs of international competitiveness and growth. It is essential for the Secretary of State to have that at the front of his mind when making regulations that will have such a big impact on the way that businesses operate in this country. I therefore commend my noble friend’s amendment, but if he is considering bringing something back on Report, he might consider something a little broader.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, this nation must earn its place in the world, and, regrettably, we are losing to some of our industrial competitors, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium and so on. We must live by our wits, and that means increasingly leaning on highly skilled, knowledge-based employment in an economy that values strong intellectual property rights, the rule of contract and property rights themselves. That requires an economy with flexibility and agility.

Earlier today, along with other noble Lords, I sat on the Home-based Working Committee. We are seeing firsthand how the world of work is changing, not just in the way that we go to work but in the way that we sometimes work from home. The entire technological underpinning of our economy is changing too. We have not yet seen the end of artificial intelligence and what it might do to low-skilled, somewhat transactional arrangements.

It does not help the economy, and by extension those who work in it, if all participating employers and unions do not recognise that we have a duty to move with the times. We cannot put a wall around our economy and create some high-cost walled garden as the rest of the world trades its way to prosperity, leaving us behind. I strongly support Amendment 256 and want to give more power to the officer who, more than anyone, can cajole and encourage workers’ representatives to recognise the world as it is, rather than the world as they might wish it to be.