The rise in interest rates globally in 2022–23 led to improved scheme funding for many defined-benefit pension schemes. Many schemes in the UK now find themselves closer to, or at, a fully funded position on a low-risk basis (annuity buyout or self-sufficiency). Finishing the journey while managing the risk of losses on that journey is highly desirable, but may be difficult to achieve in practice.

However many schemes are not yet sufficiently funded to buy out liabilities in full with an insurer. Others may not wish to, and many who can afford to do so are not yet able to for investment reasons (such as holding illiquid assets) or operational reasons (such as the time needed to resolve member data issues). For schemes that instead look to adopt self-sufficient ongoing management with low dependency on the sponsoring employer, this may be difficult to maintain in practice. In short, there remains a risk that benefits will not be secured in full, which with hindsight could have been avoided.

The addition of capital to pension scheme assets has long been deployed to enhance the security of member benefits e.g., capital from insurers in the case of a buyout or capital from sponsors in the form of contingent assets.

More recently, providers have developed a diverse set of arrangements that draw on external capital to aid trustees and corporates to meet scheme funding ambitions. Capital Backed Funding Arrangements (“CBFA”) are in this context an additional tool in the trustee toolkit for delivering funding strategies.

This paper focusses on the UK-defined benefit market but the dynamics are applicable to other jurisdictions, with CBFAs being developed for wider markets (e.g., Ireland).

In this paper we:

• survey the current scheme funding landscape and consider the need in this environment for arrangements to support scheme funding journeys to deliver benefits in full

• summarise the key features of arrangements in the market that may support these objectives

• set out considerations for trustees and sponsoring companies when assessing these arrangements.

The aim of this paper is educational – to increase awareness of the key issues and potential solutions. Professional advice will always be required prior to any transaction. We welcome feedback from readers on further material that would be beneficial to support consideration of these arrangements.

Breastfeeding represents a strong selective factor for shaping the infant gut microbiota. Besides providing nutritional requirements for the infant, human milk is a key source of oligosaccharides, human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), and diverse microbes in early life. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of human milk microbiota and oligosaccharides on the composition of infant faecal microbiota at one, three, and nine months postpartum. We profiled milk microbiota, HMOs, and infant faecal microbiota from 23 mother–infant pairs at these time points. The predominant genera in milk samples were Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, and an unclassified Enterobacteriaceae genus-level taxon (Enterobacteriaceae uncl.), whereas the infant faecal microbiota was predominated by Bifidobacterium, Bacteroides, and Enterobacteriaceae uncl. Mother–infant dyads frequently shared bacterial amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) belonging to the genera Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Enterobacteriaceae uncl., Veillonella, Bacteroides, and Haemophilus. The individual HMO concentrations in the milk showed either no change or decreased over the lactation period, except for 3-fucosyllactose (3-FL), which increased. Neither maternal secretor status nor HMO concentrations were significantly associated with microbiota composition at the different ages or the bacterial ASVs of maternal milk and infant faeces. This study suggests an age-dependent role of milk microbes in shaping the gut microbiota, while variations in HMO concentrations show limited influence.

In 2002, I published an article in Theatre Research International called ‘Heiner Müller as the End of Brechtian Dramaturgy: Müller on Brecht in Two Lesser-Known Fragments’. I had written my doctoral dissertation on Müller, and, in the course of my studies, had come across two shorter pieces that, to my knowledge, had not been discussed by scholars. The first was Philoktet 1979 (Philoctetes 1979), a short, parodic and grotesque treatment of the Philoctetes myth, something very different from Müller's more sombre adaptation of the same material, published in 1965. I had heard Müller read the comic piece at the Berliner Ensemble in March 1995 and located the source in a copy of the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, printed in December 1978. The second piece was also parodic and also appeared in a newspaper. Nachleben Brechts Beischlaf Auferstehung in Berlin (Brecht's Afterlife Intercourse Resurrection in Berlin) featured in the Volkszeitung in July 1990.1 The title suggested that Müller was ironically quoting his own back catalogue, echoing his play Leben Gundlings Friedrich von Preußen Lessings Schlaf Traum Schrei (Gundling's Life Frederick of Prussia Lessings Sleep Dream Cry) (1977) and Germania Tod in Berlin (Germania Death in Berlin) (1978). Stylistically, it looked like a heightened version of the technique employed in Philoktet 1979, in that it drew on and collided more Brechtian intertexts, and referenced Müller's own work more extensively. My doctoral supervisor had found the short playlet in the Volkszeitung. It was one of five responses to Brecht from prominent German literary figures, including Peter Handke and Martin Walser, collected under the title ‘Brecht: Stimmen der Dichter’ (Brecht: The Writers Speak). In my article's fifth footnote, I observed that while Philoktet 1979 appeared in the only extant bibliography of the playwright at the time, Nachleben Brechts did not. It would be hard to conceal an amount of smugness in my observation. But such self-satisfaction is not a quality worth airing too publicly, as will become evident soon.

In this article David Barnett documents a practice-as-research project that employed Brechtian approaches to stage dramatic material. The Crucible by Arthur Miller is a realist text in which the protagonist, John Proctor, redeems himself for the sin of adultery by taking a heroic stand against the Salem witch-hunts. Existing scholarship has revealed a series of gendered biases in the form and content of the play, yet these findings have never been systematically realized in performance. While appearing to defend democratic values, the play’s dramaturgical strategies coerce agreement, and this represents a fundamental contradiction. Brecht offers a method that preserves the written dialogue, but interprets it critically onstage, deploying a range of devices derived from a materialist and dialectical interpretation. The aim of the production was to re-present a play with a familiar production history and problematize the political bases on which it conventionally rested. The article discusses the rationale for the theory and practice of contemporary Brechtian theatre and offers the production as a model for future critical realizations of other realist plays. David Barnett is Professor of Theatre at the University of York. His publications include A History of the Berliner Ensemble (CUP, 2015), Brecht in Practice: Theatre, Theory and Performance (Bloomsbury, 2014), amd Rainer Werner Fassbinder and the German Theatre (CUP, 2005).