Home-based Working Committee

This Lords inquiry scrutinised how government policy is adapting to the rise in home-based and hybrid working, including the role of flexible working in the labour market, data gaps, and what the government and Civil Service plan to do next. Key government commitments include: (a) the Employment Rights Bill introducing a new dialogue process when rejecting flexible-working requests and a reasonableness test, with secondary legislation planned for 2027; (b) development of a statutory code of practice on the right to disconnect (not in the Bill) with consultation underway; (c) planned guidance and a digitised information hub to help employers and employees access practical advice; (d) continued data collection and dissemination through surveys and collaboration with the ONS/DSIT for better measurement; (e) expansion of SME support through the Business Growth Service and 41 local growth hubs; and (f) Civil Service leadership in hybrid working via a 60% office-attendance target and a new line-management capability programme. The session also highlighted data gaps on flexible-working requests, concerns about tribunal workloads, and the need to improve data sharing across government and with employers to assess productivity, well-being, and inclusion effects of hybrid work.

Session 1 (AI and work): Leading academics outline how generative AI affects remote/hybrid work, productivity, and global relocation of knowledge work, highlighting that productivity gains are strongest for novices/low-skilled workers and that in-person communication remains a source of differentiation. They stress infrastructure availability/affordability as key barriers to deeper hybrid adoption and caution that productivity measurement is fragile and easily gamed. They also suggest emergent roles (e.g., AI auditors) and that hybrid setups may still be superior for breakthrough work if managed to preserve knowledge spillovers. Session 2 (flexible/hybrid work and Employment Rights Bill): ACAS and law-firm witnesses discuss practical implementation, dispute prevention, and the limited current dispute data around remote/hybrid working. They emphasise case-by-case handling of flexible-working requests, the risk of indirect discrimination, and the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill’s suggestion that employers justify why a remote/flex arrangement is unreasonable. They also flag health and safety, taxation, immigration, insurance, and tribunal backlogs as practical challenges for employers and employees navigating hybrid work policies.

The session covered two linked strands of home-based working: (1) digital infrastructure and connectivity for remote/hybrid work, including rural vs urban access, peak-capacity provisioning, and the progress and gaps in Project Gigabit; and (2) cybersecurity for hybrid/remote working, focusing on risk posture, zero-trust approaches, BYOD, SME readiness, and the need for government guidance and training. Witnesses from industry (Vorboss; INCA) outlined practical capacity and investment dynamics, while academic and corporate cybersecurity experts highlighted the evolving threat landscape and the case for a government framework or ‘compass’ to guide organisations of all sizes. Key takeaways include calls for: (a) sustained government leadership and planning clarity on fibre deployment and digital inclusion; (b) continued progress toward high-uptake, reliable, low-latency networks with peak-capacity provisioning; (c) a shift in risk management and policy emphasis toward zero-trust architecture, broader employee training, and SME-friendly cybersecurity guidance; and (d) a recognition of the socio-economic implications of hybrid working beyond productivity. Government commitments signposted include Project Gigabit delivery with updated targets (2032 for 99% coverage) and a push for enhanced cyber resilience guidance for workplaces.

The Lords Select Committee scrutinised home-based and hybrid working across a public-private mix, focusing on the NHS in England, a privately-held tech/financial firm (eToro UK), and a large tech platform (Zoom). Key issues touched include: NHS hybrid working remains low (about 1.5% of 1.4 million staff regularly work from home) with front-line clinical roles least suited to remote work and local NHS trusts applying varying policies; private employers favour a three-days-in-office pattern with some department-level flexibility, and concerns about space, recruitment, costs of commuting, and potential two-tier experiences for those with poorer home access; the importance of evidence on productivity and well-being, plus management training and implementation support, were emphasized. The witnesses also highlighted the potential of broadband infrastructure and AI-enabled tools to enable hybrid work, while warning of cybersecurity risks. Government-oriented recommendations included clearer implementation guidance for flexible working via ACAS, consideration of Employment Rights Bill implications for flexible-working requests, and stronger broadband/infrastructure investment to support hybrid models. The session produced several concrete recommendations and policy signals on flexible-working implementation, data collection, and infrastructure alongside a call for more robust national productivity evidence.

This evidence session (9 June 2025) scrutinised how UK organisations are implementing home-based, hybrid, and office-based work, and the policy/shadow of government guidance on remote work. Witnesses from a port operator (Bristol Port Company), a financial/tech insurer (Nationwide), a consumer tech broker (Compare the Market), and two industry bodies (techUK; Make UK) discussed current location policies (office vs home), effects on recruitment, retention, career progression, customer outcomes, and office space strategy. Key government policy signals referenced include the Employment Rights Bill (debate around right to flexible working and employer duties) and calls for clearer government guidance on health, safety, and flexible-working expectations. The session highlighted: - corporate policies that mandate, or strongly encourage, certain office days (e.g., Nationwide 2 days, Compare the Market 10 days but contractual terms may differ), and Bristol Port’s five-day in-person norm; - concerns about Friday/weekday occupancy and how to optimise office space; - the importance of trust, middle-management training, and leadership in hybrid environments; - calls for government to provide guidance while avoiding overregulation; - evidence on customer satisfaction linked to hybrid arrangements; - cybersecurity considerations in hybrid models; - potential implications of the Employment Rights Bill on recruitment and inequality.

The evidence session scrutinised the health impacts of home-based and hybrid working, plus the urban/economic effects on high streets and hospitality. Witnesses highlighted both benefits (improved work–life balance, potential for increased physical activity among younger workers, and autonomy in choosing work patterns) and risks (musculoskeletal problems from non-ergonomic home setups, sleep disruption, psychosocial risks, and digital presenteeism). They urged organisations to adopt evidence-based management practices, invest in appropriate home-working infrastructure, and use existing standards and guidance (BSI/ISO) to manage risks rather than rely on new legislation. A government-friendly angle emerged around expanding guidance via standards, with calls for a carrot-based approach to enforcement and potential legislative options like a right to disconnect, framed as a code of practice or legislation as appropriate. The session also found that town centres face structural challenges beyond home-working, advocating multipurpose, community-led high streets and targeted policy levers (high street rental auctions, community right to buy, reform of business rates) to support town-centre vitality. Looking ahead, authorities and stakeholders expect hybrid working to continue but not to reverse, with growth in secondary/high-street and neighbourhood centres and an ongoing need to balance productivity with well-being and inclusion.