Working From Home (Home-based Working Committee Report)

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a partner and practising solicitor with DAC Beachcroft.

What an interesting debate this has been. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I have served with her on committees before. She has great skill, and this report is a testament to her success. It is also a fact that so many of the members of her committee have contributed to the debate, which does not often happen—and it has been of great advantage. It has also been marvellous to hear from my noble friend Lord Sharma about how it all started around the time that he was in the Cabinet. That gave the whole debate a degree of context.

I very much welcome the report and the opportunity it provides to examine, as my noble friend Lord Monks pointed out right at the start of the debate, one of the most important shifts in working practice of the modern era. He is quite right to highlight the fact that we are now facing further shifts through AI, and I found his speech very valuable.

I will begin with what should be the foundational principle underpinning our approach: the Government have to take a step back and allow private sector employers to determine the working practices they believe are best for their businesses and their workforce, whether that is full time, fully remote or some hybrid arrangements in between.

As my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone pointed out, the role of the chief people officer has become so important. It was good to hear a number of views about flexible working, although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe—whom I call my noble friend—that I hope that his idea of Parliament working from home full-time is not to be taken too seriously. I also enjoyed the revelations from the noble Lord, Hampton, on some of his practices in the past.

It has been an entertaining and interesting debate, but I will try to join other speakers in looking at the whole picture. Across the length and breadth of this country, different approaches work for different sectors, firms and communities. Employers have had to adapt, often at pace and at significant cost, particularly since the pandemic turned working life on its head almost overnight. What the report rightly recognises—and what the Government should take to heart—is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Employer flexibility is what matters most, and it should be remembered that businesses operating in a free market have every incentive to create the most productive workforce they can. They do not need the Government to tell them how to arrange their own affairs.

I worry that the Government seemed to have moved in the opposite direction. Through the Employment Rights Act 2025, Ministers have introduced a strengthened right to flexible working, making it considerably more difficult for employers to introduce that concept. This provision is expected to come into force in 2027, subject to consultation, yet the Government have confirmed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, pointed out in her introductory speech—that the legislation does not intend to provide a definition of “reasonableness”. One must ask: what precisely is the point? If the threshold test is “reasonableness” but Parliament declines to define what “reasonable” means, all we have done is transfer the question from the employer’s boardroom to the employment tribunal. We have not resolved it; we have simply moved the uncertainty—and at considerable cost to businesses and to a tribunal system already operating under severe strain, as many have pointed out. The report warns of the prospect of “years of litigation”, if the legislation is not defined clearly and effectively. That is not a fringe concern raised by business lobby groups; it has been raised by the Select Committee itself.

It is worth reminding the Chamber what currently exists in the ACAS code of practice. An employer may reject a flexible working request but only on one of eight specified grounds, including

“the burden of additional costs … an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff … an inability to recruit additional staff … a detrimental impact on quality … a detrimental impact on performance … a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand … insufficient work available for the periods the employee proposes to work … planned structural changes to the employer’s business”.

These are not arbitrary barriers erected to frustrate workers—far from it; they are carefully calibrated, operationally grounded reasons that reflect the genuine commercial judgments an employer must be able to make. Why are the Government seeking to erode that flexibility? What evidence exists that the current framework is insufficient to protect workers who have a legitimate case?

My noble friends Lady Manzoor and Lady Bottomley turned to productivity. Considering what effect any future changes in legislation will have on productivity must surely be a central priority for any Government serious about growth. The picture the report paints is—to put it mildly—inconclusive. Boosting productivity across the labour market is one of the great challenges of our time, but there is insufficient data. As the eminent scientist, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, asked: where is the data? Why do we not have sufficient grounds on which to base our judgments? The ONS already admits that there is insufficient data, so we look to the Minister to make sure that we have the necessary data.

Another element ran through the debate. I had the opportunity to bring forward employment legislation—it was 42 years ago, so I am sorry to raise it. I introduced a scheme called Access to Work, which we have touched on several times in this debate. With that scheme, we sought to make it possible for people with a disability—people from various backgrounds—to have the necessary equipment to enable them to work alongside people who did not have any disability. In many ways, the question that we are now asking and that this report highlights is: what are we going to do to meet the challenges not only of flexible working but of artificial intelligence? How will we make sure that young people today have the opportunities they need?

My noble friend Lord Fink raised the question of young people. Can the Minister think through the need for solutions to be found by the Government? Mr Milburn will produce his report later this year. Now with over 1 million people not in education, employment or training, there are serious problems ahead if we are to give opportunities right across the field, in particular to young people. I hope that the Minister will do more than the Government did in their very brief response to the report. I also hope that she will be able to bring us up to date with what the Government said in paragraph 9 of their response; namely, that they

“will take forward a number of priority actions, including strengthening cross-government research and analysis efforts, and exploring how best to target information and advice to line managers”.

What does all that mean? That was several weeks ago, so what has happened since? It also states that they will

“establish a more structured, official-led stakeholder group”.

Has that group now been established? If so, can the Minister give us a full report on what has been achieved so far? This report requires a much more detailed response.

If there is a case for this Select Committee to continue, it has been made. I am sorry to say this to all its members present, but I think that this work is so valuable that it needs to continue. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing from the Minister.