Speaking to Law360, Lisa Pinney described the new super‑regulator as grounded in the labour market and taking a compliance‑first stance on enforcement. From the outset, she wants it to draw on experience from industry, trade unions and the third sector to make compliance simpler while safeguarding workers from serious exploitation. Her message was clear: the agency will support responsible businesses, but will take the toughest action against those who exploit staff or undercut fair operators. Pinney and other leaders at the Fair Work Agency confirmed that 7 April 2026 is a soft launch: a website will go live and phone numbers from the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, and the Office for the Director of Labour Market Enforcement will be redirected to the agency. Around 450 HM Revenue and Customs staff—making up most of the...

What was the background to the consultation? On 15 May 2025, the government issued a formal consultation paper setting out detailed proposed reforms to the LGPS in England and Wales, together with accompanying draft regulations to enact them. The exercise centred on changes the government plans to deliver to widen access, improve fairness and simplify administration within the LGPS across the scheme. Survivor benefits and death grants Actions to tackle the gender pension gap Opt-out data collection Forfeiture rules and provisions Outstanding matters under the McCloud remedy A suite of technical regulatory amendments The consultation formally closed on 7 August 2025, and the results were published on 2 February 2026. There were 172 responses, including 49 administering authorities, 25 employers, 68 members, the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board, the LGA, the LGPC, the LGPS National Pension Officer Group, a government department, four trade unions, plus professional bodies, and software and...

Advocate General for Scotland (Representing the Ministry of Defence) v Milroy [2026] EAT 25 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling potentially carries significant real-world consequences for reservists who were kept outside pension entitlement for service rendered before 1 April 2015, when the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 commenced. That said, it should be borne in mind that under the 1975 and 2005 Armed Forces Pension Schemes, which applied only to regular personnel, a two-year qualifying period was required before any pension rights arose. On the Employment Tribunal’s findings, and looking at typical annual duty days and cumulative service, most reservists would not, in any event, have met the thresholds for a pension under those earlier arrangements. When advising in a specific matter, the individual’s span of service will therefore be a critical consideration. The conclusion on the basic pay point appears poised to...

Employment Appeal Judge Douglas Fairley, sitting in Edinburgh, confirmed on 29 January 2026 a decision that the MoD had penalised Major Charles Milroy. Fairley J said the department did so because of his part-time status, by ignoring his service before April 2015 for pension calculations and paying him less than full-time colleagues. In a judgment that may affect other army reservists, Fairley J rejected the MoD’s case that Milroy was not a worker for the purposes of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, which protect the rights of part-time staff. Fairley J stated that the lower tribunal had ruled ‘that there was no substantial difference between the nature of [Milroy’s] relationship with the Army on the one hand and that between an employer and......