Blog

  • Stephen Twigg – 2013 Speech to Policy Exchange

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Education Secretary, to the Policy Exchange Conference on 23rd January 2013.

    I am delighted to have the opportunity this morning to set out my thinking on the future of vocational education in this country.

    I want to thank David and Policy Exchange for providing me with this platform and for the important contribution that you are making to this debate.

    The report that you published earlier this week reveals both the challenges and opportunities we face in delivering a vocational education system that will strengthen our country’s standing in the world.

    We can only achieve lasting and sustainable reform if there is a coalition of support across politics, business and of course amongst parents, teachers and students themselves. Policy Exchange is playing an important role in building a coalition that is both in the best interests of young people and future economic growth.

    It is great to see that Labour’s plans to improve the status and quality of practical and technical skills in this country, which Ed Miliband announced last September, are now gaining cross-party support. Our plans for a gold standard Technical Baccalaureate qualification are supported not just by this leading right of centre think tank, but also by the Conservative former Education Secretary Lord Baker, and albeit belatedly, by the Minister for Skills.

    It’s this kind of consensus that can create long term education reform. It’s the kind of consensus that is totally lacking in Michael Gove’s plans to introduce EBacc Certificates. Or I should say there is a consensus, just not in favour. It spans the CBI, the designer of the iPhone, the head of the Tate gallery, the leading private schools, the head of Ofqual and many teachers and their associations. It’s not often they can all agree. Their opposition to EBacc Certificates reflects Labour’s concerns – that the plans are narrow, risk creating a two tier system and are not fit for the 21st Century.

    As the former Education Secretary Lord Baker put it “The EBacc is exactly the same to the exam I sat in 1951 when I was 16, the School Certificate. And that was changed, even in 1951, because it simply wasn’t broad enough for a large number of children. And only seven per cent of young people went on to post-16 education, I was part of a privileged elite. And the EBacc is a throwback to that.”

    Instead of seeking to recreate the past, the central question we need to address is: how do we reform our education system so that it equips young people with the skills, knowledge, resilience and character that they need to play their part both as active citizens and as future business leaders and entrepreneurs?

    Tim Oates, who has been advising the Government on the national curriculum, has talked to me about Britain’s strength in skills, innovation and creativity. We need to ensure we play to our strengths, rather than undermine them.

    For me, strengthening the skills of young people in Britain is a great patriotic cause. It should be seen as part of our economic mission – at the heart of our drive to maintain our competitive edge in the world.

    The problem, as Tim has noted, is that our vocational education system was designed in this country after the Second World War only to be exported to Germany, where today, it continues to prosper.

    Today, Britain risks losing the global race on skills. We need to be as strong as Germany and Switzerland on vocational education, and as competitive as Singapore and Japan on Maths. Our future national competitiveness is at stake.

    Rab Butler’s 1944 Education Act sought to make progress. The introduction of technical schools – known as County Colleges was set to offer 15 to 18 year olds technical education to supplement their apprenticeships. But this ambition was never realised.

    Ever since we packaged up and sent off our post-war blueprint for technical and practical education, successive governments have failed to deliver the step change that our education system and economy need.

    While Britain was once the workshop of the world, we have seen a de-industrial revolution in recent decades. When Margaret Thatcher came to power, manufacturing accounted for almost 30 per cent of Britain’s national income and employed 6.8 million people. By 2010, it was down to just over 11 per cent of the economy, with a workforce of only 2.5 million.

    Since the 1980s, there has been a focus on school standards and expanding Higher Education. However, successive Governments have not done enough to help the 50% of young people who don’t go to university. We would now focus our reformist zeal on the skills agenda – driving up the standards of vocational and technical courses by getting employers to accredit them.

    That is why Labour has placed vocational education front and centre in our plans for One Nation Education.

    My fear is that without a clear drive and focus on raising the standards of practical and technical skills in this country, we will condemn ourselves to a decade of economic decline.

    If we look at the leading countries for vocational education, it becomes clear the sort of step change that we need in this country.

    In Switzerland, which I plan to visit later this year, nearly two-thirds of Swiss upper-secondary students enrol in vocational education and training. In a study of the 2000 cohort of Swiss youth, vocational study was the choice of 42 per cent of the highest academic achievers.

    In Germany, around half of all young people under the age of 22 have successfully completed an apprenticeship, and they are offered by around one in three companies.

    According to the OECD, the dual system in Germany “offers qualifications in a broad spectrum of professions and flexibly adapts to the changing needs of the labour market” with a “high degree of engagement and ownership on the part of employers and other social partners.”

    If we are to match countries like Germany and Switzerland we need a major reform programme of vocational courses and qualifications.

    The CBI has argued that improving the quality of vocational courses could add as much as a percentage point to economic growth.

    Instead of having courses designed by politicians, Labour would involve businesses in accrediting the quality of vocational courses as part of a new gold standard qualification at 18, a Tech Bacc.

    One gold standard qualification that exists today is the Engineering Diploma. In fact you could say it was a Rolls Royce qualification – having been designed by the company along with the Royal Academy of Engineering, BAE Systems and JCB. Sadly, the Government decided to downgrade the qualification from being worth 5 GCSEs to only 1.

    Bizarrely, the Chancellor now says they intend to reinstate a diploma worth 4 GCSEs, but only from 2016. This u-turn illustrates the incoherent and shambolic approach to vocational education from the Government. To secure Britain’s economic future, we must do better.

    We need to give students a clear route so they can progress. There are too many young people who go through a revolving door of low qualifications, suppressing their potential.

    Alison Wolf noted in her report that 350,000 young people gain little or no value from the education system. Simply getting a few level 1 or level 2 qualifications often leaves students at risk of ending up not in employment, education or training or finding that there is little return from the labour market for such a low level set of qualifications.

    Incredibly, the system can actually reduce their potential. Young males with Level 2 NVQs actually earn less than their contemporaries with fewer qualifications. That is staggering if you think about it for a moment – their courses have made them worse off.

    There are complicated factors behind this revolving door of low qualifications. Prior attainment and engagement in the early years plays its part, as do wider social and economic issues. But getting rid of careers advice, and the EMA have played their part.

    We need to get the incentives right. We must give young people a clear route and a gold standard to aim for at 18. One that is respected by employers, universities and parents.

    So Labour’s Tech Bacc will provide a rigorous set of qualifications to motivate young people to progress well beyond Level 2.

    We also need to provide more quality, high level apprenticeships from which school and college leavers can progress into. I was interested to note the recommendation of 3 year apprenticeships in Policy Exchange’s report this week.

    On the Government’s watch, while the number of apprenticeships has increased, not enough have been of high enough quality, and too few have gone to young people.

    Often apprenticeship starts have been about re-badging training courses for existing older workers, rather than giving young people a foot on the employment ladder.

    So Labour would engage employers in designing high quality apprenticeships, giving them a greater say in spending £1 billion worth of funding to target apprenticeships at young people.

    We would ensure that groups of employers, coming together in regions, sectors and supply chains, have the resources and powers they need to improve training. These would be powerful, employer-led partnerships working with our FE colleges and bringing together industry stakeholders, building on our landscape of employer associations, professional bodies, Sector Skills Councils, Local Enterprise Partnerships and local chambers of commerce.

    Nearly half of employers say that the prospect of trained staff being poached by rival firms deters them from training employees. So Labour will ask business what incentives they need to ensure they can deliver the expansion in apprenticeships we need to rebuild the economy. It would then be up to groups of businesses themselves to decide which of these powers they will use.

    We want to see a new ‘Fast Track’ for apprentices into the civil service, matching the Fast Stream for graduates. And Labour would make it a requirement for all large firms with government contracts to provide apprenticeships.

    We also have to raise the status and profile of apprenticeships. Too many young people go through school without anyone providing quality advice to them on an apprenticeship. Given the reduction in funding for information and guidance, it is no wonder.

    Policy Exchange has brought the challenges to light by illustrating that nearly one in three young people drop out of their A Level courses, reflecting the fact they may not have had the best advice to begin with.

    Labour are looking at how we can improve the quality of advice to young people, including better awareness of apprenticeships.

    I want to see schools and colleges providing Apprenticeship Taster Days to teenagers. If pupils are able to take a few days out of the classroom to visit universities, then I don’t see why the same principle shouldn’t apply to apprenticeships.

    Young people from age 14 should be able to get the opportunity to visit companies who have apprenticeships to see what is involved in the programme, and understand the training and career opportunities open to them.

    I want children to aspire to a high quality apprenticeship, just as much as they might aspire to go to Oxbridge. It might surprise you, but in fact a high quality apprenticeship can be more competitive. In 2010, BT had nearly received nearly 24,000 applications for 221 apprenticeship places, more than the 17,000 applications to Oxford University, which has around 3,000 undergraduate places.

    I also want to strengthen the relationship between employers and schools and colleges.

    This includes businesses being involved in the design of the curriculum to ensure young people are work-ready, and more local employers sitting on school and college governing bodies.

    I am also delighted to announce today that Labour is looking to reform the provision of work experience in schools and colleges.

    The Government have sidelined work experience, ending the statutory duty for schools to provide work experience for 14 to 16 year olds.

    Instead, I want all schools to develop partnerships with local employers. At secondary school that means offering a quality work experience placement linked to the curriculum. The work experience placement must be more than just two weeks of photocopying and tea making. It must be a rigorous programme providing experience of workplace skills and followed up with teaching and learning in the classroom.

    And Labour would go further. We are looking at how businesses can provide ‘work discovery’ programmes to inspire primary school children about the world of work. This would involve businesses conducting visits to primary schools to talk about their sector, and organising factory and office trips for pupils.

    There are already innovative programmes happening to inspire primary school pupils about the world of work. The YES Programme is a work-related teaching resource that provides bespoke films and lesson materials to primary schools. It provides primary pupils with a window into the world of work, directly linked to the curriculum.

    And there is Primary Engineer, a non profit programme which encourages primary pupils to consider careers in STEM related professions, by providing teacher training, interactive resources, and competitions for school children.

    It is clear if we are to develop a generation of entrepreneurs and innovators we need to capture their imagination early.

    Creating a symbiotic relationship between schools and businesses is one of the tasks of Labour’s One Nation Skills Taskforce.

    Led by Professor Chris Husbands from the Institute of Education, we are taking advice from distinguished figures from business and skills. The Taskforce’s remit spans 14 – 19 education and will flesh out rigorous academic and vocational routes in order to improve the confidence of young people, parents, education providers and universities.

    One of the areas we need to consider is how to improve the quality of careers advice and guidance to young people.

    Since the Government decided to give responsibility to schools for careers advice, we have seen 8 in 10 schools dramatically cut the careers advice they provide, according to a survey by Careers England.

    Today, the Education Select Committee has produced a withering assessment of the Government’s record on careers advice. They say that both the quality and quantity of careers advice and guidance has deteriorated, at a time when it is most needed.

    The removal of face to face careers advice by the Government could be hugely damaging in the long term. I’m interested to note the recommendations by the committee to restore face to face provision and for schools to provide an annual careers plan so they can be held accountable to parents for the advice they provide. As the committee notes, young people deserve far better than what is currently on offer.

    To get young people ready for the modern world of work we have to overcome the crude divides which set young people irreversibly down either the vocational route or the academic route.

    Vocational versus academic is one of the many false choices in education. Overcoming the divide is critical to building a One Nation Education System.

    Michael Barber, in his recently published essay Oceans of Innovation challenged educationalists and policy makers to reject the sort of ‘either or’ thinking that has held this country back.

    Labour would provide more flexibility for young people to do both traditional and practical courses.

    As part of our reforms to exams and the curriculum I want to ensure that there are more opportunities for young people to switch between different courses, to ensure they play to their strengths and get a broad and balanced education.

    That means schools developing partnerships with FE colleges and employers to ensure young people doing GCSEs and A Levels get access to equipment, expertise and training in vocational subjects. I have seen this first-hand in schools like the City Academy Norwich which has a partnership with their local FE college.

    It also means ensuring that those who get our new Tech Bacc at 18 see university as a possible option for their future as much as employment or a high quality apprenticeship.

    I want to ensure there is rigour in the core subjects such as Maths and English, but not confined to them. Rigour must be applied right across the curriculum, so we will drive up the standard of vocational courses and academic ones.

    As well as matching countries like Germany and Switzerland on skills, we need to ensure we are competing with the East Asian nations like Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong on the core subjects.

    That means improving the quality of teaching and learning in English and Maths. We did much in Government to improve standards in literacy and numeracy.

    At the end of primary school, eight in ten pupils achieved the required level 4 in English and a similar number in Maths in 2010, compared to only six in ten pupils in 1997.

    And at the end of secondary school, the proportion of students getting a C grade or higher in A Level English went from just over half in 1997 to nearly eight in ten. And at Maths the proportion of students getting a C grade or higher went from six in ten, to eight in ten.

    Ah – that’s just grade inflation I hear you cry. Well, not according to the TIMSS independent international survey conducted by Boston College. This shows that England was ranked 25th in the world for Maths in 1995, but in the most recent study in 2011 we were ranked 9th, the second highest in Europe.

    There’s some way to go still, but one of the programmes I am most proud of were the ones that allowed one to one tuition in English and Maths for primary school pupils – known as ‘Every Child a Reader’ and ‘Every Child Counts’.

    These were innovative programmes, backed by solid research evidence and supported by businesses like KPMG.

    Unfortunately they have been cut by the Government, despite the fact they got a return on investment of 17 to 1. Already we are seeing 9,000 fewer primary school pupils – a 40% drop – get access to specialist reading tuition.

    As well as focussing on the early years, I want to see all young people continuing to study English and Maths to 18. We know, as Professor Alison Wolf observed, that almost half of young people are leaving formal education at 16 without reaching the expected level of reading, writing and arithmetic. Of those who stay on after 16, only 3% go on to reach that level.

    The Government claims it is addressing the Wolf report, but in fact it only provides re-sits for those who don’t get a C grade at GCSE. I want to go much further and create new courses and qualifications so all pupils, whatever route they take continue studying English and Maths to 18.

    There are a lot of pupils the Government is overlooking. Of those pupils who get a B or a C grade in GCSE Maths, only 16% will go on to study AS-Level Maths. Put another way, every year there are more than a quarter of a million students who achieve a grade B or C at GCSE, but who do not, or cannot, continue studying the subject.

    Labour is examining how we could create new courses and qualifications for those who want to continue studying English and Maths, but don’t feel a whole A-Level is the right option for them.

    We are one of the only countries in the developed world that doesn’t require pupils to study Maths and their own language until they leave school. Only one in five students in England studies Maths to the age of 18, whereas the figure in the US, New Zealand and Singapore is over six in ten, and in Germany and Hong Kong it is over nine in ten.

    The raising of the education participation age, which will increase to 17 this year and to 18 in 2015 provides us with an opportunity to fix this once and for all.

    The University Technical Colleges, which started under Labour, prove that it can be done. They require Maths and English to age 18, and are proving popular and successful.

    If you want to succeed in life, you have to be confident and secure in the foundations.

    But you also have to play to your strengths.

    Our strength as a nation is when we combine a drive for academic rigour with the creativity and innovation that powered our success through history.

    It is a strength that will only continue if we have schools, colleges, a curriculum and exams that are forward looking and not regressive.

    If we end that false divide between the academic and the vocational. Ensuring young people are inspired about the world of work from an early age.

    With a relentless drive for reform, across the whole education system.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Twigg – 2012 Speech to ATL Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Education Secretary, to the ATL Conference on 3rd April 2012.

    Good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

    It’s great to be here with Mary and the rest of the team. The ATL has a proud history in standing up for the rights of female teachers in particular, ever since a small group of women teachers stood together in the late 19th Century. You have been and will continue to be a voice of authority; a hand of support; and a champion for excellent teaching. So I thank you for the hard work that you are all doing in schools and colleges across the country.

    I can well remember my last visit to ATL Conference.

    It was in Bournemouth in 2004 when I was the Schools Minister. Some of the veterans among you might recall an encounter I had.

    At the press conference after my speech, I was approached by a teacher about a national pay scale for support staff in schools – an issue I will come back to later in my remarks. The teacher – Mr Bevan – was fairly forcefully putting forward the case of his wife, a teaching assistant called Marion. As you might imagine, the press had a field day. ‘Minister berated after bathing in the warm applause from conference floor’ ran the story. ‘As he was about to make it to the door’, reports ran, ‘he came face-to-face with an unlikely political assassin.’

    In a twist to the tale, it turned out that the Mr Bevan was in fact married to the same Marion who polled ahead of me in the 1983 mock General Election at Southgate Comprehensive School.

    Standing as the Conservative candidate, Marion polled two places above me, as I experienced my first taste of electoral defeat as a Labour candidate.

    It wouldn’t be the last time I would have to suffer embarrassment at the hands of the Conservatives in Southgate.

    But things have moved on.

    Since my appointment last October, I have spent a great deal of time in schools across the country, learning about the innovative practices that are being employed by education leaders, at all levels of school and in all types of schools.

    If you listen to the Government, you would sometimes think that good practice only exists in free schools and academies. Now, I am unapologetic about the success that the academies Labour set up have enjoyed. Raising standards in some of the poorest neighbourhoods. But if we cherry pick certain schools, we will never raise standards for all.

    We all have a duty to celebrate success in education – as well as challenging under-performance where it exists and being uncompromising on standards.

    It is a widely shared view that we currently have the best ever generation of teachers. But we cannot rest. Building on these foundations, we have to ensure the next generation of teachers is even stronger if we are to maintain our international competitiveness.

    Yet too much of the debate is weighted towards doing down the teaching profession.

    There is a paradox at the heart of the education debate. Ministers criticise teachers for not raising standards.

    Yet their answer is to change the governance structures of school.

    Why not address the real challenge – how to raise the status and quality of teaching in this country?

    I have said this before – it matters far more what classroom you are in, than what school you are in.

    There is fantastic practice happening up and down the country. The challenge is to spread this best practice, while giving teachers the freedom to innovate and inspire.

    So today, I want to address this challenge head on.

    Unfortunately, being in opposition does not afford me the luxury of setting government policy. But it does provide the space in which to reflect on Labour’s record, on the challenges ahead and to hold the government to account on the decisions that it makes. With my colleagues in the Shadow Education Team we are conducting a wide ranging review into our policies to ensure they are fit for future challenges.

    I have asked each of our shadow ministers in the Commons to look at a specific area.

    So Kevin Brennan is looking at the National Curriculum;

    Sharon Hodgson at Special Educational Needs;

    Karen Buck at Youth Services; and Catherine McKinnell at adoption and looked after children.

    Along with Bev Hughes and Maggie Jones in the Lords – we are taking on the mantle of renewing our offer.

    And I hope many ATL members will contribute to these reviews with your ideas on how we can collectively raise our game.

    When I was appointed I said that I wanted to put the classroom front and centre in the debate on education. Too many, on both the Left and the Right, are obsessed with overhauling structures. And as important as structures are, we know that what makes the most difference to the education outcomes for our children is the quality of teaching.

    This is what the evidence says and it is evidence that should guide education policy, not ideology and the myths of a golden past. All too often in debates on education, we hear opinions formed by a rose tinted view of the past. There is a tendency for living mythically.

    We saw it last week on grammar schools.

    And we see it today in the attitude – on both sides – to free schools.

    We cannot meet the challenges of an advanced industrialised nation, develop high tech manufacturing skills, pupils adapted to the dissemination of information via social networks with an education approach that is rooted in 19th Century industrialism, 1960s idealism or 1980s marketisation.

    I have argued and will continue to argue for an evidence-based approach to education.

    We also have to ensure that the evidence keeps pace with an era of constant upheaval. I know the pace of change can be overwhelming, but if we fail to keep up it will be to fail the next generation.

    While our economic future is uncertain, while we face unparalleled competition from abroad, and a public that expects far more, our schools have to keep pace.

    While we must invest in buildings, equipment and books – the most important thing is to invest in quality teaching.

    We know that high quality teaching makes the biggest difference, in terms of education outcomes for all young people.

    Especially significant is the impact of teaching on pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    We know that the poorest children are concentrated in schools with the highest levels of underperformance. Research from the Royal Society of Arts identified this ‘double disadvantage’ in which the most deprived young people are likely to receive a below par education.

    The data from their report shows that more affluent pupils tend to attend better schools. By contrast, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are over-represented in ‘Satisfactory’ and ‘Inadequate’ schools.

    Young people from poorer backgrounds consistently make the least progress in school: the findings from this report demonstrate that the quality of disadvantaged pupils’ schooling contributes to the poor educational outcomes of these (particularly vulnerable) young people.

    Research from the Sutton Trust has shown that over a school year, these pupils gain one and a half years’ worth of learning with very effective teachers, compared with half a years’ with poorly performing teachers.

    In other words, being a poor pupil in a poor classroom, is the equivalent of being left a year behind.

    This is a national scandal.

    I know there are inequalities in our health system, but if poorer patients were left to linger on waiting lists for an extra year there would be a huge outcry.

    But too often in education, we accept inequality – condemning certain children to mediocrity because we assume that they cannot achieve success.

    This is one of the biggest barriers to social mobility today.

    So one of the top priorities of a future Labour Government will be to address these areas of ‘double disadvantage’.

    The double whammy of a poor background and a poor school – creating a cycle of poverty that can exclude generation after generation.

    We started to address this in government. Our academies had an average intake of 30% of pupils on free school meals – well above the national average of 18%, and six times the average intake in academies set up by the Tory-led Government.

    The research conducted by ATL into increased numbers of pupils on free school meals highlights the increase in poverty, as families across the country are feeling the squeeze.

    So double disadvantage is a growing problem.

    It is important we don’t lose focus on healthy school meals, including breakfast clubs as routes to increasing attainment.

    And it is important we understand why free school meals have a low take up in some areas – if there is more to do to address issues around stigma.

    We need innovative solutions to tackle cyclical poverty – the priority should be to develop educational best practice and target at these areas of double disadvantage.

    Too often the Government focuses its energy on pet projects which don’t raise standards in areas of real disadvantage.

    While Labour’s academies focussed on some of the poorest communities, by contrast, the Free Schools and Academies being set up under the Tory-led Government are often in areas with already outstanding schools, and higher levels of wealth.

    The priority for new schools should be areas with a shortage of places. In particular, more primary schools to address the growing crisis in primary places.

    The Government is failing to deal with this urgent shortage. Across England we need nearly half a million more primary places – the equivalent of building an extra 2,000 primary schools between now and the General Election.

    All the Government has done so far is promise an extra 100 new Free Schools, many of which will be secondaries and many not in areas with the greatest need for places.

    This shortfall is being felt on the ground. In Barking and Dagenham, the council are proposing to rent out an empty Woolworth’s store and a warehouse from MFI to house temporary classes.

    Brighton Council is looking at pupils being taught at a football stadium, in a bingo hall or in redundant churches.

    And at Ladybarn Primary School here in Manchester a surge in pupil numbers means that pupils have to eat their lunch in shifts, with the first wave sitting down to their lunch at 11.15am. Many then have to have a second meal in the afternoon because they get hungry again.

    It is irresponsible that while pushing through the biggest cuts to education spending since the 1950s, the Government decided to spend half its capital allocation in the Autumn Statement on Free Schools. We believe all the capital should be spent on meeting basic need on the ground.

    Even more importantly, if we are to address this double disadvantage, we have to encourage more teachers to teach in tough schools in poor neighbourhoods. The exact opposite of what will happen under the Government’s regional pay plans.

    If regional pay means pay cuts for teachers in the poorest parts of England how does that help tackle disadvantage? I urge the Government to think again.

    Part of the answer to addressing the double disadvantage is to develop stronger progress measures – so parents and communities better understand how schools develop children, not just churn out results.

    A school that is progressing is more likely to attract quality teachers and quality leaders.

    And we need to challenge teachers and schools to continually improve.

    For poor performing schools, the focus must be on improving attainment and raising basic standards. For satisfactory schools, the focus must be on developing innovative approaches which go the extra mile. And for good or outstanding schools, the challenge is for them to take on extra responsibility to raise standards amongst other schools in their community.

    By the same token, a teacher should be able to demonstrate how they have improved their practice every year – year after year. And the Government’s teaching standards should reflect that – so a newly qualified teacher is not treated in the same way as a professional of many years standing.

    My education mission is to improve the quality of teaching and learning. That is the key to unlocking systematic improvements in our school system.

    And that is my aim – system wide improvement. Not a policy that works for a few children in a few schools but systemic reform that delivers better outcomes for all children in all schools.

    I know part of the answer is to foster a culture of good behaviour, where teachers and other pupils are respected, bullying is not tolerated and an ethos of learning is celebrated.

    I want to pay tribute to the pupils from the Magna Carta School who spoke to you yesterday on the issue of homophobic bullying in schools.

    Schools should be safe and secure environments in which all young people embark on their journey of personal development and fulfilment, in becoming people who think for themselves and act for others.

    Schools should give children and young people the space in which they are educated of the dangers of discrimination and in which diversity is celebrated.

    Yet for too many young people, going to school is an all too different experience.

    While there has been some great progress since I was at school, homophobic bullying still blights the lives of too many young people.

    Where homophobic bullying goes on, discrimination and harassment prevail. Learning and development are stifled.

    As a young man at school, I was unable to share the truth about my sexual orientation openly. In fact I only shared it with a single friend.

    I would have hoped that by today, other young people in my situation would not have had to share the reservations that I had.

    That they would not have to face discrimination and stigma for their sexual orientation.

    Sadly, despite progress in overcoming discrimination of this kind, we must all redouble our efforts to tackle homophobic bullying in schools and across society as different forms of homophobia – verbal, emotional and physical – continue.

    I want to commend the excellent work of Stonewall through their ‘Education For All’ campaign. Working with trade union partners, they play a crucial role in supporting teachers and schools to confront the homophobic bullying in schools.

    But even today, there are still very few “out” teachers, especially heads. I want to pay tribute to the courage of those who are out and the positive role ATL and the other teacher unions have played on LGBT equality.

    We have made great progress in institutions like Parliament, with far more MPs and Peers open today about their sexuality. While I respect people’s right to privacy, it is a mark on our society if teachers feel unable to be open.

    The tragic story of Dominic and Roger Crouch brings home the loss that can occur when discrimination prevails in our schools.

    Dominic Crouch committed suicide following reports of homophobic bullying at school. Responding to the death of a child, a father’s worst nightmare, Roger campaigned to highlight the issue of homophobic bullying in schools. Roger was recognised as the Hero of 2011 by the gay rights charity Stonewall. However, the consequences of Dominic’s bullying did not stop at his own death. In November of last year Roger, unable to cope, took his own life.

    I highlight the experience of the Crouch family to illustrate the consequences of the forces of ignorance. We must all take forward the powerful message of the pupils from the Magna Carta school to confront homophobia, in all its forms.

    So I want to pay tribute to Charlotte Hewitt, Molly Russell, Hannah Wells, Cara Houghton and Duncan Lewry for their fantastic work to address homophobic bullying in schools. Their video carries a powerful message and warrants the commendation that they received from the Prime Minister. In taking on this project, these young people have shown excellent examples of leadership and we should all commend their efforts. We have to do far more to address bullying in schools of all kinds.

    First, teachers should have specific training on anti-bullying skills as part of their initial teacher training.

    Second, schools must adopt a zero tolerance approach, with a particular focus on discrimination.

    Third, every school should have a charter – posted visibly in classrooms and corridors which explains what kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

    All of us have a responsibility to challenge bullying, and we have to ensure a culture that supports those teachers and pupils who stand up to bullies.

    I know too that violence and bullying isn’t something that just affects pupils.

    I was shocked to see the research which ATL produced showing that a third of teachers had experienced some kind of physical violence.

    While there is a responsibility on school leaders to address this problem, there is a clearly a wider issue here.

    Schools can often be the only ‘safe haven’ for young people.

    Parents can be a huge influence on their children. They are the ultimate force for change.

    When parents take a strong interest in their child’s development, it can be the difference between good and bad behaviour, the difference between good and bad attainment, and the difference between a life of success, or a chaotic and troubled future.

    So Labour will look at the whole issue of parenting and childcare as we conduct our policy review process.

    Tackling intergenerational failure – poverty, illiteracy, worklessness, substance abuse and criminality will be the key marker of our success as a society.

    I am privileged to have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time visiting schools and meeting with teachers, seeing the fantastic work that goes on in many class rooms. One of the things that has struck me from talking to teachers is the need to look again at how teachers are supported in strengthening and developing themselves to improve the educational outcomes in their classrooms.

    Raising performance does not come about by talking down the teaching profession.

    Michael Gove has got it wrong by focusing on a minority of poorly performing teachers. Of course, not everyone has what it takes to be a teacher. And I have said that I will always support head teachers in getting rid of those who do not make the mark. But in weighting the debate so heavily towards the minority, the Education Secretary risks undermining the profession.

    Improvement and change come about by fostering learning within the teaching profession and by taking the profession with you, not by pitching yourself against it. When I was a minister, the London Challenge showed what can be achieved through effective partnership work and working with the profession. Ofsted reported in 2010 that the London Challenge has continued to improve outcomes for pupils in London’s primary and secondary schools at a faster rate than England overall.

    And whilst we should be cautious about applying an approach across the country that has worked in London, there are lessons we can learn.

    The Sutton Trust has found that English schools could improve their low position in international league tables in Reading and Mathematics and become one of the top five education performers in the world within 10 years if the performance of the country’s least effective teachers was brought up to the national average.

    In schools across England, there are leaders in all levels of schools and in all types of schools who are using the creative space afforded to them to be innovative in collaborating with colleagues within their school and across schools. These ‘energy creators’ are pioneering innovation and leading the charge for system improvement.

    I am interested in seeing how we can learn more from collaborative models, such as those at North Liverpool Academy, where large classes are taught by three teachers, promoting peer-to-peer planning, delivery and evaluation. I am frequently told by teachers that there needs to be a greater emphasis on peer-to-peer learning, both within and between schools. I will be interested in hearing from you today on your thoughts on the best ways for taking forward this agenda.

    I want to recognise the excellent work of Teach First, celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, and the impact that it has had on both raising performance and the status of the teaching profession. What makes their initiative so impressive is not just the excellent graduates coming through over the past 10 years but the emphasis that Teach First places on producing graduates who share in the responsibility of raising outcomes across their own schools and their community of schools in which they work. I met recently with Teaching Leaders who similarly share this outlook and who are doing fantastic work with middle leaders in schools.

    Both individual teachers and schools can and must play a role in driving system wide improvement.

    It’s useful here to look at the criteria, set out by education expert Judith Little, in identifying what makes a good school. She argues that we can tell a good school- one that delivers educational progress and improved outcomes for all children- where the following criteria are evident:

    – where teachers talk about teaching;

    – where teachers observe each other’s practice;

    – where teachers plan, monitor and evaluate their work together;

    – and where teachers teach each other.

    Collaboration amongst teachers – within and between schools – is the key to achieving this. And whilst there are examples of this occurring organically, there is a need to systematically address how the education system promotes collaboration and innovation here.

    As Mary highlighted in her speech yesterday, we know that the highest performing countries place far greater emphasis on peer-to-peer learning in the Continued Professional Development of teachers. So as well as learning from good practice at home, there are valuable lessons from abroad.

    For example in Japan, the following components shape their pedagogy:

    – a very sharp focus on lesson planning (minute by minute);

    – joint planning between teachers across schools;

    – joint reflection and refinement;

    – repeat ‘performance of lessons’; and

    – public demonstration of successful lessons

    So we need to look at how high performing jurisdictions like Japan have achieved success and ask what we can do to improve the Continuing Professional Development of our teachers.

    And that I why I have asked Sir Tim Brighouse – who many of you will know – to review CPD for teachers in the country. Tim is a distinguished educationalist who has championed the voice of teachers. I know that Tim is very well placed to provide evidence-based recommendations on the best way forward for system wide improvement.

    And as it is right that we must continue to strive for improvements in teaching, it is also right that we continue to work to raise the status of support staff in our schools.

    I recently shared a platform with Mary, when I launched the idea of establishing an ‘Office for Educational Improvement’. The idea is to create an educational equivalent of the Office for Budgetary Responsibility to act as an independent clearing house for evidence-based education policy. Chairing the event, the Editor of the Times Education Supplement, Gerard Kelly, challenged Mary and I to be guided by evidence on support staff. I want to take on this challenge here today.

    I have to say, support staff can play a vitally important role in school improvement but this is dependent on the role and function that they fulfil.

    Recent research from the Institute of Education reports that an under-performing child who spends more time with a Teaching Assistant and thus receives less attention from teachers will not progress as well as they should. Teaching Assistants can and should play an important role in the classroom but they must not become the primary educators for SEN children or those who are falling behind.

    In Government, Labour delivered a step change in our education system, through a programme of investment and reform. We invested in huge numbers of Teaching Assistants and in support staff in schools. And we were right to do so. It is right too that we consider the evidence to look at how support staff, as we do with teachers, can be most effective in raising the educational outcomes of all children.

    We should recognise the hard work and achievements of support staff. As Education Secretary, Ed Balls made strides towards a better deal for support staff in their terms and conditions. And whilst we didn’t achieve all that we might, progress was made. I know that many ATL members will be keen for the Government to set out its vision for support staff, an area that as yet, we have heard very little on.

    Finally, I want to turn now to touch on something your President Alice Robinson has written about in her welcome message to conference delegates.

    Accessing high quality learning opportunities should be open to all of our children. Unfortunately, this is not the reality.

    Opportunities for self-fulfilment for all our children, whatever their background

    Raising aspiration in children so that they know that they can realise their true potential through hard work.

    That is why I am in education.

    Under Labour, whilst we didn’t get everything right, we made huge strides.

    In narrowing the attainment gap between the rich and the poor

    In raising the status and quality of the teaching profession

    And through investment in Early Years which pays dividends down the road

    A Sure Start Centre in every community

    Nursery places for 3 and 4 year olds

    A guarantee of 15 hours a week childcare for the most deprived 2 year olds

    In introducing these radical policies, Labour set the terms for what became the accepted narrative. Investment in early years is better for children and better for the economy.

    Yet, despite the Prime Minister’s promises on Sure Start, he has not remained true to his word.

    Hundreds of children’s centres closing. The ring fence on funding removed. And many centres unable to employ a qualified teacher any more.

    We also see in the crisis in primary school places, a Government that is failing to respond. Favouring to concentrate on pet projects, Michael Gove is ignoring the half a million new places we will need by the next election.

    So as Labour moves forward in renewing our offer on education, we will be guided by evidence and we will focus on:

    – system wide improvement, that will improve learning outcomes for all children in all schools;

    – tackling double disadvantage to narrow the gap between the richest and poorest pupils;

    – and reforms that builds on the foundations of the best generation of teachers

    I look forward to having that debate with everyone here at ATL and with others in the education world.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Twigg – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, made at Labour Party conference on 4th October 2012.

    Thank you.

    And thank you to Dave and Joan, you inspire us all. It’s a privilege to do this job when you meet young people like Joan. She came here having claimed political asylum.

    Despite all the barriers, she became a grade A student. Conference – she is One Nation Britain.

    I learned aspiration from my Mum. A bright girl from the East End of London, she left school at 15. My Mum always told me, “That’s not going to happen to you. You’re going to university.”

    I also had great teachers. Funnily enough, one of them was called Mr Coward.

    Mr Coward gave me the courage to become the first pupil from Southgate Comprehensive to go to Oxford. He shows the power of a great teacher.

    I say this to Michael Gove – stop running down our teachers and young people. Celebrate their ambition instead.

    I love doing this job, but I couldn’t do it without the support of the frontbench team.

    So thank you to Sharon, Kevin, Karen and Lisa in the Commons and Bev and Maggie in the Lords.

    And thanks to my Policy Commission co-chair, the GMB’s one and only Mary Turner. Thanks Mary.

    Our central challenge is how to get our economy growing.

    We’re not the biggest nation. So for a country like ours, it’s smart to be smart.

    Education isn’t just a moral right, it is an economic good too.

    The Tories claim they want high standards. But they’ve put standards at risk. The biggest cuts to education since the ‘50s, and teacher numbers falling.

    Young people held back. Like the thousands who lost out, when their GCSE English was downgraded.

    Michael Gove washed his hands of responsibility.

    So much for “we’re all in this together”. His message to young people is – you’re on your own.

    It’s no wonder that One Nation Conservatives don’t agree with him. Ken Baker, the former Education Secretary says Labour is right on vocational education, and the Conservative MP Graham Stuart says Michael Gove’s new exams are ill conceived and incoherent.

    We know Michael Gove is wrong, but even Conservatives think he’s extreme and out of touch.

    He claims to be in favour of rigour. But he is totally outdated. Rote learning and regurgitating facts. An exam system from the 1950s.

    We believe young people need both knowledge and skills. The rigour of the future, not the past.

    As well as the basics, we need creative subjects like music, design and art.

    And practical subjects like engineering and IT. But what do the Tories do? They focus only on the Ebacc and say the engineering diploma, a course designed by Rolls Royce, is worthless.

    How out of date can you get?

    And how does removing the right to work experience help young people get ready for a job? Now more than ever, young people need quality work experience.

    In primary school, companies should provide ‘work discovery’ programmes and in secondary school, every young person should get work experience linked to their studies not just two weeks of photocopying.

    Labour will meet the challenge of every young person staying on until 18.

    As Ed said on Tuesday, there is already a clear path for those who do A Levels and then go to university.

    But we need a clear path for the forgotten 50 per cent.

    So we will create a new, gold standard vocational qualification – the Technical Baccalaureate.

    Michael Gove wants narrow, elitist education. We are the party of One Nation education.

    Instead of going back to O-levels, we will look forward. Instead of coming up with a plan on the back of an envelope, we will engage the experts – in business and education.

    So I am delighted to announce today that Professor Chris Husbands, from the Institute of Education will be chairing a taskforce to take forward these ideas.

    Every young person must study English and Maths until 18. Incredibly, we are one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn’t require this.

    Barely one in ten pupils who are on free school meals at age 11, study English and Maths after the age of 16.

    That is a huge injustice. So I hope you will join our campaign, by signing up on the website or tweeting using the hashtag “3Rsto18”.

    We will build this One Nation Education system by raising standards for all.

    Take Joan’s school, United Learning’s Paddington Academy, set up under Labour. Five years ago, only a quarter of pupils got 5 good GCSEs. Now, three quarters do and they sent their first pupil to Cambridge.

    That’s raising aspiration for you.

    Or take Barlow Hall Primary, here in Manchester. In 2004, standards were well below average. Today, with a cutting edge Reading Recovery centre, it is a school transformed.

    We take on those who say “you can’t turn coal into diamond”.

    Michael Gove has a plan for some schools and some pupils. We have a plan for all schools and all pupils.

    I want every school to have the freedom to innovate, not just some. To shape their own curriculum. To develop specialisms. To have a longer school day.

    Alongside freedom comes responsibility – strong schools should work with weaker schools to raise performance for all.

    And all schools should ensure pupils get a minimum of two hours of PE a week, and that every pupil in every school gets a healthy meal.

    Because when it comes to a fight between Jamie Oliver and Michael Gove, I know whose side I’m on.

    So, all schools with extra rights, and extra responsibilities. One mission: raise standards for all.

    What about free schools? On the one hand, some of them are good.

    School 21 in Newham. Popular with parents. They use groundbreaking techniques to raise standards for some of the poorest children.

    Labour can’t be against schools that drive up standards and narrow the gap in life chances.

    But there are serious problems with Michael Gove’s centralised Free Schools programme.

    He thinks the way to build new schools is to throw darts at a map. So while there’s a crisis in primary school places, Free Schools are built in areas with spare places.

    And unlike Labour’s academies, there’s no focus on under-performance or social and economic need.

    I say – engage with local parents and communities, and you won’t end up with the chaos and waste of schools that don’t open or are half empty.

    Instead of decisions made in Whitehall, we will restore a partnership between local and central government and end the practice that stops good local authorities setting up new schools.

    And whatever the type of school, whether academies, co-op schools or community schools, we will put local communities and parents back in the driving seat.

    We know what Michael Gove really wants – profit-making schools. Let me be clear: I will never allow profit-making schools.

    But the key to One Nation Education is not the type of school but what happens in the classroom. Our education system is only as good as its staff.

    Michael Gove insults teachers – calls them “whingers” – and on his watch 10,000 have left the profession.

    We should celebrate the school workforce – not just teachers and heads, but the caretakers, the teaching assistants, the dinner ladies. They are heroes.

    The best countries in the world for education see teaching as an elite profession for top graduates.

    Take teacher recruitment. In England we consider it a success when we fill every vacancy.

    But in Finland and South Korea, there are 10 applicants for every place.

    We have the best generation of teachers ever. But it can be even better.

    We will have a New Deal for Teachers.

    Labour supported Teach First to bring top graduates into teaching.

    I want the number of Teach First recruits to double from 1,000 a year to 2,000 and then further still, so it becomes one of the main routes into teaching.

    I want to develop ‘teacher taster’ sessions for those who want more of a feel for the job and a new National College for Teaching Excellence.

    Teachers need to be rewarded appropriately so we can attract the best candidates, especially in subjects like maths, sciences and IT which are harder to recruit.

    This Government wants to reduce salaries for teachers in poorer areas. How ridiculous.

    Instead I want to look at ideas like helping pay back your tuition fees, if you go to teach in a poorer area. Something for something.

    Teachers should be given more opportunity to collaborate and develop subject knowledge.

    Funding should be more flexible, so a teacher can do a master’s degree if they want.

    One way to improve teaching is to remove poor teachers. I want a teacher to have the same status as a doctor, but that means incompetent teachers must be removed.

    So. A New Deal for Teachers. New rewards, and new entitlements to training.

    And with the responsibility to improve year on year.

    It’s heartbreaking to see the damage the Tories are doing to our education system.

    It’s not enough to criticise. We have to show we will make a difference.

    We’d help the teenagers whose GCSEs were downgraded.

    We’d help the parents who can’t get their child into primary school.

    We’d help the forgotten 50 per cent.

    One Nation Education.

    Excellence for all.

    The comprehensive ideal realised.

    Live your dreams, realise your potential.

    Wherever you come from, whatever your background – that is our mission.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Twigg – 2012 Speech to Stonewall Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Education Secretary, to the Stonewall Conference held at the British Library in London on 5th July 2012.

    Good morning everyone. It is great to be here and to have the opportunity to address you on the very important issues of how we tackle homophobia and homophobic bullying in our schools. Schools- and the education system more broadly- have made very real progress in tackling discrimination and bullying in its many forms since I was at school. I will leave it to you to judge how long ago that was. As a young gay man at school, I was unable to share the truth about my sexual orientation openly. In fact I only shared it with a single friend, even though I knew for years that I was gay. I am pleased to learn about the brilliant work that is being done by schools, local authorities, trade unions, businesses and third sector organisations to ensure that young LGBT people feel that they can be more open than I felt I could be.

    Television and the media can be powerful beacons for exposing discrimination and addressing homophobic bullying in society. I want to pay tribute to programmes like Hollyoaks that has tackled this issue head on.

    Whilst schools play a very important role, which I will come on to, the media – and increasingly social media- can be influential in combating the discrimination that scars the lives of too many young people. It is fantastic to have Mark Thompson with us today and to hear his thoughts on how the media takes forward its responsibility.

    I welcome today’s publication of the Schools Report 2012. This is a very important contribution to this debate. As Labour’s education spokesman, I have the pleasure of being able to spend a good deal of time visiting schools and colleges right across the country.

    Schools should be safe environments, conducive to learning, enquiry and discovery. They should be spaces for young people to develop as individuals.

    Places where we celebrate culture and diversity within our society, at home and around the world. Schools are the vehicles by which children embark on their own journey of destiny and fulfilment.

    But we know that this vision is not one that is offered to all young people and today’s report highlights that, whilst progress has been made, as Ben rightly points out in his introduction to the School Report 2012, today’s findings leave little room for complacency. More than half of the 1600 young people surveyed for this study reported experience of homophobic bullying. Of those, over 2 in 5 have attempted or thought about taking their own life as a direct consequence. These findings show just how far we still have to go in realising the vision for all children, in all of our schools that I have just set out.

    To strike a more positive note, there are real improvements. Levels of homophobic bullying down 10% since Stonewall’s 2007 School Report. The number of schools that say homophobic bullying is wrong has more than doubled.

    A testament to all of those people and organisations that have taken the initiative and led from the front. We may finally be moving out of the long dark shadow cast by Section 28. I want to pick out a couple of examples of schools that are doing exactly this.

    I want to pay tribute to the pupils at the Magna Carta School in Surrey. Charlotte Hewitt, Molly Russell, Hannah Wells, Cara Houghton and Duncan Lewry produced, as part of their creative and media diploma, a short film to expose the reality facing those on the receiving end of homophobic bullying. ‘Homophobia: Our Closeted Education’ won praise from the Prime Minister. In taking on this project, these young people have shown excellent examples of leadership and we should all commend their efforts.

    To take another example. Earlier this week I visited Royal Wootton Bassett Academy to learn about their excellent Every Child Matters programme. The school sets aside 5 days per year for pupils to learn about social issues.

    I joined Year 9 students to hear Eva Clarke a Holocaust Survivor give her very powerful testimony and make explicit connections with prejudice and bigotry today.

    I welcome that schools are taking the initiative and structuring their curriculums to educate young people on what it is to be a citizen in today’s society.

    And in a few minutes we will learn the winner of this year’s Stonewall Education Equality Index. I look forward to presenting this important award.

    I want to say a few words now on changes in the education landscape and how these are likely to impact on our efforts to combat homophobia in schools.

    I believe in a broad curriculum, grounded in rigour and one that allows flexibility for schools. Labour in government introduced citizenship to the secondary curriculum. I am a passionate believer that schools have an important role in fostering young people who have high standards in Numeracy and Literacy, and in creating citizens and the civic leaders of the future. We are often presented with a false choice by the current government on this.

    It’s rigour and standards versus a rounded education, they say. I say, yes to rigour and high standards, for all children in all schools. And yes, to a curriculum that enables schools, whatever the type of school, to equip children with a rounded education, one that challenges prejudice and celebrates diversity.

    I see from the workshops planned for the breakout sessions that you will hear for yourselves excellent examples of schools, primary and secondary, using the flexibilities within their curriculum to do exactly this. I am excited by schools like School 21, being set up in Newham, and Reddish Vale Technology college, where I visited recently, that are taking innovative approaches to embedding PSHE and citizenship education within their curriculum. There are many tools being deployed in our schools.

    The use of extended projects that require independent enquiry and investigation across subject areas. Scheduled debating time built into the school day. Speaking and listening skills should be at the core of a 21st century curriculum. School volunteering projects, working with community partners to take action in local communities. Theatre and the arts as a means for expression and celebration. These are just some of the exciting initiatives that schools are taking.

    I regret that the Government looks set to backtrack on this agenda on citizenship, in pursuit of an education system guided by a rose tinted view of what worked in the past. But I know that there is a great deal of good will and desire from within the school system and that many schools will use the flexibilities afforded to them to maintain a broad, rich and inclusive curriculum.

    The schools landscape is changing very rapidly in England. The school system will be a very different one at the next General Election to the one that the Government inherited in May 2010.

    We are seeing an unprecedented centralisation with the proliferation of academies and introduction of free schools. This presents big questions on how schools, and other agencies in education, work together to continue to raise standards for all children in all schools.

    Traditionally, local authorities have been an integral part of the school system. Now that more than half of all secondary schools in England are academies, we are seeing a fragmentation in the school system. I welcome the opportunity for more innovation in our schools. However, it is not desirable nor is it feasible for so many schools to be accountable only to the Secretary of State. It creates a democratic deficit.

    Schools should not operate as independent islands. I am a true believer in both autonomy and collaboration. There is so much potential in greater collaboration between schools and between teachers in different schools. We have the best generation of teachers ever and we must build on this.

    So we must look carefully at the impact of this fragmentation on raising standards. But also, on how schools and agencies can respond to promote collaboration more broadly. We know that many teachers have not had sufficient training on how to address homophobic bullying. The report today highlights this. Where voids have been created, I welcome the work that is being done to fill them by Stonewall, trade unions and others.

    I have launched a consultation looking into these questions around, what has been termed ‘the middle tier’, in the school system to see how best we address concerns about democratic accountability and how schools can work in partnership and I would welcome submissions from you here today.

    The School Report sets out challenges for schools, the DfE and Ofsted. It also makes recommendations for local authorities and Academy Chains. It is vital that these proposals are adopted.

    In closing, let me again pay tribute to Stonewall and its crucial Education for All programme. I’m delighted that Wes Streeting has joined the Stonewall Team to lead this important work. I hope that today’s report will be a strong reminder to us all that yes progress has been made and we are right to champion this success. But also to show that there is no room for complacency and that it is incumbent upon us all to challenge homophobic bullying and discrimination wherever it rears its head.

  • Stephen Twigg – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by the new MP for Enfield Southgate, Stephen Twigg, in the House of Commons on 16th May 1997.

    It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech so early in the parliamentary Session, and I am delighted to be here as the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for the constituency of Enfield, Southgate. I hope to be the first in a long line of Labour Members of Parliament elected by the people of Enfield, Southgate, where I was born and brought up.

    During my lifetime, there have been just two Members of Parliament for the constituency before me. Michael Portillo was elected in a by-election in 1984. Shortly after his election to Parliament, he visited Southgate school, where I was then a sixth former. Although our politics were miles apart, Michael Portillo impressed me then as an articulate, charismatic and candid politician. Since then, he has provided more than 12 years of professional service to the people of Enfield, Southgate. During the general election campaign, on our rare encounters, he was always courteous and charming, and on the night of the election count his dignity in defeat earned him widespread and well-deserved respect. I am sure that, if he chooses to do so, he will continue to play an important role in the public life of this country.

    Mr. Portillo succeeded Sir Anthony Berry, who was tragically killed in the Brighton conference bombing in 1984. Sir Anthony Berry represented the people of Enfield, Southgate for more than 20 years in the House and is still remembered with great respect and affection by many of my constituents. In his maiden speech here in 1965, Sir Anthony warned of the dangers of the introduction of comprehensive education in Enfield. As a product of Southgate comprehensive school, I have to say that I think that many of his fears have proved to be unfounded.

    Enfield, Southgate is a wonderful and diverse local constituency. We embrace both the busy, urban life of Palmers Green and the north circular road, and the rural tranquillity of Hadley Wood and the green belt. Much of my constituency is a collection of villages—Southgate Green, Oakwood, Grange Park and Winchmore Hill, which has been spared a drive-through McDonald’s because of the determined opposition of local people and the good sense of our local Labour-controlled council.

    Southgate’s diversity is a great strength. It is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious community. Only this week, I had the privilege to lay the foundation stone for the new Hindu community centre of the Darji Mitra Mandal. There is a large Jewish community, as well as significant numbers of Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. It will be a privilege to represent them all.

    During my election campaign, perhaps the biggest single issue on the doorstep was the future of the island of Cyprus. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in the Gracious Speech to seeking a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus and I look forward to giving my full and active support to those efforts.

    Perhaps the most positive feature of the recent campaign for me was the opportunity to discuss politics with large numbers of young, first-time voters in my constituency. For me, the first sign of the large swing to Labour in Enfield, Southgate came with the results of the mock elections at our three local secondary schools, Winchmore, Broomfield and Southgate. All three schools voted Labour by overwhelming majorities. That showed the way forward for the results in Enfield, Southgate.

    I have never accepted the widely held idea that young people today are apathetic and not interested in politics. I am involved in a Fabian Society research project working with young, first-time voters, talking to them about their attitudes and opinions. In my experience, young people have clear values and strong opinions. What they reject is not politics itself, but the way we do politics in this country—the style, the language and, above all, the adversarial culture. It is an adversarial culture which is best symbolised by the old way that Prime Minister’s Question Time was done. I am sure that many people will welcome the change made in the past week.

    At the election, the biggest swing to Labour was among first-time voters. This Parliament owes it to our young people to forge a new sort of politics based on consensus, dialogue and co-operation. That is why constitutional reform is so important.

    I welcome the commitments in the Gracious Speech to devolution, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights and to reform of Parliament itself. This is not some arcane, abstract debate that is of interest only to the so-called chattering classes. It is about devolving power to the people and starting to restore people’s faith in politics.

    As a Greater London Member of Parliament, I especially welcome the proposals for a new strategic authority and a directly elected mayor for London. This country is alone in the democratic world in denying its capital city a democratic voice. The removal of that voice was one of the most petty and vindictive acts of the previous Government. I look forward to a new elected authority, working alongside an elected mayor. The mayor will be a powerful champion of London’s interests, ensuring that our first-class capital city has the impact and influence that it rightly deserves. I hope that all hon. Members representing London, regardless of their party, will unite in campaigning for a yes vote in the proposed London w ide referendum.

    Constitutional reform is not some academic debating point; it has real relevance to the bread and butter concerns of our constituents. A new authority for London can start to improve the appalling state of our transport system. Greater London’s crumbling transport infrastructure is letting down the people and the economy of this great city. We need a new authority and we need a new mayor to take the lead and get London moving again. The Labour party supports a proportional voting system for the proposed new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. I hope that we shall also adopt a similar system for the new London authority. That will ensure that we have a credible London voice representing the diversity of opinion in our capital city.

    More widely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, our manifesto proposes a commission on electoral reform for the House of Commons, followed by a referendum. Proportional representation for this House is an idea whose time has come. Electoral reform is an important democratic change, which will assist in the renewal of hope and faith in politics itself. Labour’s proposed referendum will enable the people to decide how the House is elected. It is a momentous and crucial commitment. Following the election result in Scotland, Wales and much of urban England, it is an argument that I hope the Opposition will take more seriously than they have done, both in the interests of democracy and of their party.

    This Parliament is often described as the mother of Parliaments. There is much in our parliamentary history of which we can be proud. Constitutional reform is not about tearing up our history, but about building on what is good and changing what is not. I support the Government’s proposals, both because they are good and because they will contribute to the renewal of politics and democracy in this country. Now is the time for a new, consensual politics in the United Kingdom. I look forward to playing my small part in securing those important and long-overdue reforms.

  • Stephen Timms – 2006 Speech on Pensions Commission Report

    stephentimms

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Timms, the then Minister of State for Pension Reform, at TUC Congress House in London on 18th January 2006.

    Thank you for inviting me here today.

    Pensions have never had such a high profile as they do today. I was pensions minister before, in 1999, and at that time pensions seemed like a fascinating and vital area of policy, but one of little interest outside quite a small circle. Today, everyone is talking about pensions, and for me that is a very important first step towards resolving the challenges which we face. And the progress is in no small part thanks to the invaluable work of the Pension Commission.

    I think its worth just pausing for a moment to reflect on what the Commission has achieved. There were three Commissioners: a former Director General of the CBI; last year’s President of the TUC; and a distinguished social policy academic from the LSE. And simply in producing for us a unanimous, well thought through report, which addresses the issues people have been raising, they have done us an enormous service.

    Their final report, building on what they had already told us in their interim report in November 2004 marks a milestone in responding to the impact of huge demographic and cultural changes going forward. Life expectancy has gone up by two or three months every year for the past quarter of a century, and the trend shows absolutely no sign of slackening off. It’s a wonderful transformation – arguably the greatest achievement of our civilisation – but its one which presents major challenges to our public and private pension systems. Our response will influence the shape of our society for decades to come.

    I welcome the important contributions to the debate which the TUC and Help the Aged have already made. We need more events like this for everyone to come together for a sensible discussion about the options. The more debate we have, the more people will have the chance to get their heads around the ideas and the challenges, and the better the prospects for building a consensus. And we need a consensus in order to achieve confidence that we will be introducing a package of reforms which will endure for the long term. And that’s key. People need to be confident that decisions they make in the next few years about saving for their retirement will still seem like sensible choices to have made when they come to draw an income on the basis of them in 20 or 30 or 40 years time.

    I would characterise the Pensions Commission report as comprising essentially four bold ideas:

    – Auto-enrolment into a national system of personal accounts;

    – Mandatory matching employer contributions amounting to 3% of salary;

    – Basic state pension linked from 2010 to earnings rather than prices;

    – A gradual increase in state pension age in line with rising life expectancy, starting in 2020 – with a rise to 66 sometime in the 2020s.

    The Commission has done a very impressive job. They have sifted a lot of evidence; they have weighed a great variety of opinions; and they have carried out a lot of impressive analysis of their own. There are big questions around all four of these recommendations, but they have produced a set of recommendations which address the concerns people have been raising and which hang together in a coherent way.

    David Blunkett and I launched the National Pensions Debate last summer. We have held events in different parts of the country to sound out views and get a sense of how people feel we should go forward. Earlier today, after a meeting with Brendan, Mervyn, Adair Turner and others, John Hutton announced the next phase of the National Pensions Debate, recognising that taking full account of public opinion – and not least trade union opinion – is going to be key to achieving a successful package of reform.

    We are planning a number of public engagement events over the next couple of months, building up to a large scale national event in March – a National Pensions Day. We have just let a contract to Opinion Leader Research to organise the programme. National Pensions Day will provide an opportunity for a large number of people in different locations around the country to engage with Government, to discuss the Commission recommendations and to consider the choices we have to make in dealing with the challenges ahead. It will be a good opportunity for people to contribute to shaping a long term pensions settlement. Around these events there will also be other activity, such as a toolkit for people to hold events of their own.

    So the next, and some would say the more difficult, phase of the debate is now beginning. Before, we were focussing on a diagnosis of the problem and generating ideas. Now we must debate and test the ideas of the Pensions Commissions against criteria and objectives that will deliver a lasting settlement.

    I don’t underestimate the challenge – no-one wants to hear they will have to work longer, or pay more tax, or have to spend less to save more. But nor do they want to hear that they will face a lower standard of living relative to rest of society – which is the alternative.

    Policy changes since 1997 – and in particular the introduction of pension credit and other improvements in support for pensioners – have been successful in breaking the historic like between old age and poverty. Pensioners are now no more likely to be poor than anyone else – which is a particularly remarkable achievement after a period like the last eight years in which working incomes have been rising so quickly. That is a big leap forward for fairness and we want to maintain that progress.

    But we need to secure fairness between the generations too. It would not be right to saddle a declining number of people of working age with a disproportionate tax bill for supporting an increasing number of pensioners in the decades to come. The aim of the debate is to face up to some difficult choices like that.

    Among the Pensions Commission recommendations, the Government is ruling nothing in and ruling nothing out at this stage. We have an open mind and we continue to welcome feedback on the Commission’s proposals, and ideas on alternative ways forward.

    The work of the Pensions Commission, the national pensions debate events and our own analysis of the situation will come to fruition in the Spring, when we publish our pensions White Paper. In advance of that, and in welcoming the Pensions Commission report as providing a good basis for building the consensus that we need, John Hutton has said that the Government’s package of reform proposals will need to meet five key tests and I’d like to take a moment to outline them now.

    First, does it promote personal responsibility?

    The primary responsibility for security in old age has to rest with the individual and their families. We must enable people to provide for themselves, giving everyone the opportunity to build a decent retirement income to meet their needs and hopes.

    Second, is it fair?

    The system must protect the least well off, and – I think this is going to be critically important in the public debate – the new system will need to be fair to women and carers, correcting past inequalities. At the moment, only about 30% of women reach state pension age with a full basic state pension, compared with almost 90% of men. It will take the current system twenty years for that discrepancy to be put right. I think people are going to want us to achieve fairness much more quickly than that.

    The new system must also be fair to those who have saved – rewarding those who have contributed and incentivising those who can save to do so.

    Third, is it affordable?

    This test will be absolutely central. A near 50% rise in the number of pensioners between now and 2050 presents challenges and choices for the country about the proportion of its wealth that should be used to support retirement. Already we are spending £11 billion a year more on pensioners due to our tax and benefit changes since 1997, compared incidentally with £3 billion, which would have been the bill if we had simply put in place an earnings link for the basic state pension in 1997. The bulk of that focussed on the poorest pensioners. We must not put the long term stability of public finances at risk, and we won’t as it has been such a big prize for us since then.

    Fourth, is it simple?

    There needs to be a clear deal between citizens and the state. People need to know what the Government will do for them and they need to be clear about what is expected of them. The choices people have to make need to be clear and straightforward. That doesn’t necessarily mean the details of the system are simple, but the way it is presented has to be.

    And fifth, is it sustainable?

    Any package of reform must form the basis of an enduring national consensus – and one on which people can make decisions about their retirement planning with confidence that it won’t be pulled apart by successive Governments fiddling with the system.

    Our task now is to lay the foundations for a lasting pensions settlement. We want new arrangements that stand the test of time; that won’t be uprooted by successive Governments; that will allow people to plan ahead and make decisions with confidence – whilst being flexible enough to adapt to whatever challenges will emerge in the future.

    The Government can’t solve the pensions challenge on our own. We need all of us to work together to build a lasting settlement. I need you – for example – to feed back to us the observations of your members.

    I am optimistic about what we can achieve together over the next few months, but we need all of us to be involved and contributing to this debate.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Timms – 2006 Speech on Public Service Pensions

    stephentimms

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Timms, the then Minister of State for Pension Reforms, at the National Union of Teachers in Mabledon Place, London, on 1st February 2006.

    I am delighted to be here.

    I very much welcome opportunities like this for a discussion on the options for future pensions policy. The more debate we have – and we had a very constructive debate about this in the House of Commons last night – the more people have the chance to get their heads around the ideas and the challenges, and the better the prospects for building a consensus.

    And I believe we need a consensus in order to achieve confidence that we will be introducing a package of reforms which will endure for the long term. And that’s key. People need to be confident that decisions they make in the next few years about saving for their retirement will still seem like sensible choices to have made when they come to draw an income on the basis of them in 20 or 30 or 40 years time.

    Pensions policy since 1997

    Pensions have never had such a high profile. This is my second stint as pensions minister, and in 1999 it was a fascinating and vital area of policy, but one of little interest outside quite a small circle. Today, everyone is talking about pensions. I am pleased about that. That level of discussion is much more appropriate given the importance of the topic.

    We have already made a range of very important changes in pensions policy since 1997 – and it has been those changes which have delivered a platform now on which we have the chance to build a pensions settlement for the long term.

    If you look at what happened to pensioner incomes in the 1980s and 1990s, many people saw big improvements. But the problem was that far too many people were completely left behind by the general improvement. It meant we were left in 1997 with hundreds of thousands of single pensioners with a total income of £69 per week through income support – and, if they had managed to save up a modest pension income of a few pounds per week on top of the state pension, that was taken off their income support pound for pound.

    And tackling that problem was our highest priority in pensions policy when we were elected in 1997, leading up to the introduction of Pension Credit in 2003. As a result, for the first time ever in a period of growth in the economy, retired people are no more likely than anyone else to be poor. It is a remarkable change – particularly – after a period like the last eight years in which working incomes have been rising so quickly. We have seen particularly large gains among older single women, and the dramatic improvement of the incomes in that group is arguably the most significant of all the big social improvements since 1997.

    We have also brought forward measures to bolster confidence in occupational pensions, through the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme. We have introduced the state second pension which greatly boosts the pension savings of people on low incomes, and enables carers now for the first time to build up a second pension. And we have introduced stakeholder pensions which make it possible to save economically for people for whom it was not possible in the past.

    The Pensions Commission

    But there is much more interest in all of this today. And that change is in no small part thanks to the work of the Pensions Commission, which has thrust the debate about pensions onto the front pages of the newspapers, no longer the preserve of a handful of insiders but a debate the public at large are engaged with.

    I think it’s worth just pausing for a moment to reflect on what the Commission has achieved. There were three Commissioners: a former Director General of the CBI; last year’s President of the TUC; and a distinguished social policy academic from the LSE. And simply in producing for us a unanimous, well thought through report, which addresses the issues people have been raising, they have done us an enormous service.

    Life expectancy has gone up by two or three months every year for the past quarter of a century, and the trend shows absolutely no sign of slackening off. In 1950, average male retirement age was 67 and we spent 19% of our adult life in retirement. Today we spend almost 30%. And life expectancy is continuing to race ahead.

    It’s a wonderful transformation – arguably the greatest achievement of our civilisation – but it’s one which presents major challenges to our public and private pension systems. We need to manage the impact of demographic, social and economic challenges to support security and dignity for everyone in old age. And I believe we can.

    The Turner Commission was very clear that there is not a pensions crisis today. I agree. But they identified 9.6 million people who were not saving enough for their retirement. Failure to respond would lead to a crisis in twenty or thirty years time. We need to adapt our policies today, and our response will influence the shape of our society for decades to come.

    I would characterise the Pensions Commission report as comprising essentially four bold ideas:

    Auto-enrolment into a national system of personal accounts;

    Mandatory matching employer contributions at 3% of salary;

    Basic state pension linked from 2010 to earnings rather than prices;

    A gradual increase in state pension age in line with rising life expectancy, starting with a rise from 65 to 66 sometime in twenty years time.

    The Commission has done a very impressive job. They have sifted a lot of evidence; they have weighed a great variety of opinions; and they have carried out a lot of impressive analysis of their own. There are big questions around all four of these recommendations, but they have produced a set of recommendations which address the concerns people have been raising and which hang together in a coherent way.

    The National Pensions Debate

    David Blunkett and I launched the National Pensions Debate last summer. We have held events in different parts of the country to sound out views and get a sense of how people feel we should go forward.

    John Hutton recently announced the next phase of the National Pensions Debate. We recognise that taking full account of public opinion – not least contributions from pensioners’ organisations and trade unions – will be absolutely vital to achieving a successful package of reform.

    We are planning a number of public engagement events over the next couple of months, building up to a large scale national event in March – a National Pensions Day. We have let a contract to Opinion Leader Research to organise the programme. The Day will provide an opportunity for a large number of people in half a dozen different locations around the country to deliberate and express considered views on the choices we have to make in dealing with the challenges ahead. It will be an important contribution to shaping a long term pensions settlement. And there will be other activity, such as a toolkit for people to hold deliberation events of their own.

    I don’t underestimate the challenge. No-one wants to hear they will have to work longer, or pay more tax, or have to spend less to save more. But nor do they want to hear that they will face a lower standard of living relative to rest of society – which is the alternative.

    Among the Pensions Commission recommendations, we are ruling nothing in and ruling nothing out at this stage. We have an open mind and we continue to welcome feedback on the Commission’s proposals, and ideas on alternative ways forward.

    The work of the Pensions Commission, the National Pensions Debate and our own analysis of the situation will come to fruition in the Spring, when we publish our pensions White Paper. In advance of that, and in welcoming the Pensions Commission report as providing a good basis for building the consensus that we need, John Hutton has said that the Government’s package of reform proposals will need to meet five key tests and I’d like to take a moment to outline them now.

    First, does it promote personal responsibility?

    The primary responsibility for security in old age has to rest with the individual and their families. We must enable people to provide for themselves, giving everyone the opportunity to build a decent retirement income to meet their needs and hopes.

    Second, is it fair?

    The system must protect the least well off, and – I think this is going to be critically important in the public debate – the new system will need to be fair to women and carers, correcting past inequalities. At the moment, only about 30% of women reach state pension age with a full basic state pension, compared with almost 90% of men. It will take the current system twenty years for that discrepancy to be put right. I think people are going to want us to achieve fairness much more quickly than that.

    The new system must also be fair to those who have saved – rewarding those who have contributed, and giving an incentive for those who can save to do so.

    Third, is it affordable?

    This test will be absolutely central. We anticipate a near 50% rise in the number of pensioners between now and 2050. So what proportion of the nation’s wealth should we use to support retirement? Already we are spending £11 billion a year more on pensioners due to our tax and benefit changes since 1997, compared incidentally with £3 billion, which would have been the bill if we had simply put in place an earnings link for the basic state pension in 1997. The bulk of that extra spending has been focussed on the least well off pensioners. But in planning for the future, we certainly mustn’t put long term stability of the public finances at risk, and we won’t.

    Fourth, is it simple?

    There needs to be a clear deal between citizens and the state. People need to know what the Government will do for them and they need to be clear about what is expected of them. The choices people have to make need to be clear and straightforward. That doesn’t necessarily mean the details of the system will be simple, but the choices do have to be.

    And fifth, is it sustainable?

    Any package of reform must form the basis of an enduring national consensus – and one on which people can make decisions about their retirement planning with confidence that it won’t be pulled apart by successive Governments fiddling with the system. We want new arrangements that stand the test of time; that will allow people to plan ahead and make decisions with confidence – whilst being flexible enough to adapt to whatever challenges will emerge in the future.

    Conclusion

    The Government can’t solve the pensions challenge on our own. We need all of us to work together to build a lasting settlement. I need you – for example – to feed back to us the observations of your members.

    I am optimistic about what we can achieve over the next few months, about the prospects for securing this lasting pensions settlement, but we need all of us to be engaged and contributing to the debate in order to be successful.

    I am grateful to have this opportunity with this group today.

  • Stephen Timms – 2006 Speech to Resolution Foundation

    stephentimms

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Timms, the then Minister of State for Pension Reform, to the Resolution Foundation on 7th February 2006.

    I am delighted to be here. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the corporate responsibility movement because I see it as one of the most hopeful resources we have for creative new ideas to address some big challenges our society faces. The Resolution Foundation is an excellent example of that and I warmly welcome this first public initiative which the Foundation is taking.

    We are in a busy period for welfare reform. We have made clear that our approach is underpinned by core values: equality, opportunity, fairness, social justice. Its an approach which resonates well with the British people, as we saw two weeks ago with the very warm public response to the welfare reform green paper, setting out how we can improve the opportunities for people who have become trapped on incapacity benefits, removing some of the barriers which have made it difficult for them to move back into employment, and encouraging them to do so. And the most positive responses of all came from disabled people themselves.

    And we want now to build on this pro-reform wave, building on the same values, to set out how we will make the most of the opportunities of an ageing society. We want to support successful outcomes throughout people’s lives, enabling people to make choices for themselves with confidence, and in that way to deliver security and dignity in retirement.

    Life expectancy at 65 has been going up by two or three months every year for the past quarter of a century, and the trend shows absolutely no sign of slackening off. If anything, it has been speeding up in the latter part of the period. It’s a wonderful transformation – arguably the greatest achievement of our civilisation – but its one which presents major challenges to our public and private pension systems.

    The Pensions Commission had three members: a former Director General of the CBI; last year’s President of the TUC; and a distinguished social policy academic from the LSE. And simply in producing for us a unanimous, well thought through report, which addresses the issues people have been raising, they have done us an enormous service. It opens up the chance now of an enduring pensions settlement for the UK, which everyone can see would be an enormous prize. To secure it, we need as broad as possible a consensus about the right way forward.

    The Commission’s first report identified two significant challenges. The first was the demographic challenge. In 1950 we spent 19% of our adult life in retirement. We now spend almost 30%. And the figure will rise further still. The second was under-saving. The Commission calculated that as many as 10 million people were not making adequate provision for retirement. People on low income form a significant proportion of this number – exactly the group the Resolution Foundation has been researching, and I do welcome the approach the Foundation has been taking.

    I would characterise the Commission’s final report in November as comprising essentially four bold ideas:

    – Auto-enrolment into a national system of personal pension accounts;

    – Mandatory matching employer contributions amounting to 3% of salary;

    – Basic state pension linked from 2010 to earnings rather than prices;

    – A gradual increase in state pension age in line with rising life expectancy, starting in 2020 – with a rise to 66 anticipated by 2030.

    We have welcomed the broad framework of the Pensions Commission proposals and options. As the report itself made clear, there is still much to be discussed and decided on the detail, but the report has provided us with the right framework for building the consensus for reform which we need.

    The National Pensions Debate was launched by David Blunkett last summer. There have been a series of events across the country, providing an opportunity for us to engage directly with individuals affected by the outcome of the debate, to seek the views of as wide a group of people and institutions as possible. The more debate we have, the more people will have the chance to get their heads around the ideas and the challenges, and the better the prospects for building a consensus. And we need a consensus, because only a consensus can secure public confidence that we will be introducing a package of reforms which will endure for the long term.

    We are planning a number of public engagement events over the next couple of months, building up to a large scale national event in March – a National Pensions Day. That will involve people of all ages from every section of the community taking part in simultaneous consultation events in major cities across the UK. John Hutton will be setting out today in a speech to the Work Foundation further details of our proposals for the Day.

    The work of the Pensions Commission, the national pensions debate events and our own analysis of the situation will come to fruition in the Spring, when we publish our pensions White Paper.

    In advance of this we have made clear that a package of reform which we will feel able to bring forward in the white paper will need to meet five key tests: that it promotes personal responsibility; and is fair, affordable, simple and sustainable.

    I want to comment in particular today on three of the tests, most directly impacted by the focus of this conference – on personal responsibility, simplicity and sustainability.

    Personal responsibility

    Firstly, personal responsibility. The primary responsibility for security in old age has to rest with the individual and their families. An active welfare state must provide a floor below which no-one should be allowed to fall, but its primary role must be to enable people to provide for themselves, giving everyone the opportunity to build a decent retirement income that meets their needs and hopes.

    That means we need to encourage individuals and their employers to provide for a pension that will deliver at least a minimum base load of earnings-replacement; and to provide for everyone the opportunity to save for a decent pension at the lowest possible cost.

    Lord Turner saw a major expansion of workplace savings as fundamental, recommending that all employees should be automatically enrolled into either a high quality employer pension scheme or a newly created National Pensions Savings Scheme.

    The principle of personal accounts has been widely welcomed by the pensions industry. But there is a variety of views about how that principle can most effectively be secured. We want to explore the alternatives – to build consensus by testing different ideas. That is why I invited all those in the industry who believe that they can produce a better model for personal accounts to work up the details of their alternative approach and submit them to us by the end of this week. We will be holding a joint event for all the alternatives to be presented and considered on 28 February.

    Simplicity

    Another key test is simplicity – straightforwardness for pension savers. There must be a clear deal between citizens and the State, so that people know what the Government will do for them, and what responsibilities they have in return.

    The US Social Security system provides an informative illustration. The formula for working out each person’s social security payment when they retire is quite complicated. But the shape of the system is crystal clear to everyone – and there is a very high degree of confidence on which people can base their decisions about saving. Of course, it helps that the system has barely changed in its essentials since it was introduced by F D Roosevelt’s Secretary of Labor – Frances Perkins, the first woman to serve in an American cabinet – in 1935. We need a comparable degree of confidence in our system.

    So we need clear, credible financial advice; and an important role for pensions information and pensions forecasts in showing people how much they need to save to achieve the income they want in retirement. We need better financial capability, so that people are able to plan ahead to achieve their aspirations for retirement.

    We want people to be in a position:

    – to accept personal responsibility and be motivated to take action;

    – to have realistic expectations; and

    – to make confident decisions about their long-term finances.

    The aim of our Informed Choice programme for pensions is to help people to understand the importance of long-term savings, and the value of savings they already have. We want them to know what options they have to meet any shortfall in their financial expectations for retirement.

    A third of consumers admit lacking confidence with financial affairs. To improve the position, we need to work in partnership with the financial service industry. So my department is working alongside the FSA and others on the national strategy for financial capability which Clive Briault will be speaking about shortly. I serve on the steering group for that.

    I am very pleased that the Resolution Foundation is working with the FSA at improving financial capability through generic financial advice. I welcome the focus in that work on the needs of low to middle earners. That is a crucial audience in tackling under-saving for retirement, and the key target market for any national system of personal pension accounts.

    Improving financial capability will also bring broader economic benefits. It will lower unemployment, boost people’s earnings and promote wider social benefits.

    But information alone will not remedy all the problems of consumers in financial services markets. Individuals need skills to convert basic information into effective knowledge. With those skills comes confidence to demand high levels of service from businesses. Consumers who make the right choices and can assert their needs clearly can encourage businesses to become more competitive. Confident consumers drive markets to work better, for the common good.

    I know the Resolution Foundation is exploring this area and I will be interested in any proposals being proposed in this area. Jeremy Vincent from my department will set out lessons from a DWP pilot on pensions advice in the workplace in Session 3 today.

    Sustainability

    The final test is one of sustainability – having a system that allows people to plan over the long term. The reform package must form the basis of an enduring national consensus; a system that will – like the US system – stand the test of time and not fall victim to constant modification by successive Governments. And that is key. People need to be confident that decisions they make in the next few years about saving for their retirement will still seem like sensible choices to have made, when they come to draw a retirement income on the basis of them in 20 or 30 or 40 years time.

    I’m optimistic about what we can achieve but the Government cannot solve the pensions challenge on our own. It requires all of us to work together to build a lasting settlement. I warmly welcome the contribution of the Resolution Foundation in providing potentially some critical insights for a successful package of reform.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Timms – 2005 Speech at IPPR Report Launch

    stephentimms

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Timms, the then Minister of State for Pension Reform, made at the Institute of Materials on 25th July 2005.

    Thank you for inviting me here today. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Peter this morning and to engage in a discussion with you all on this central issue in the pensions debate. And we see raising the effective age of retirement as not just about pensions, but also as addressing the wider welfare reform challenge which confronts us. We want to create an inclusive society where we can all benefit from the skills and contributions of people who want to work but who are currently excluded from the labour market, whether their exclusion is because of their age, their lack of skills, or for any other reason.

    Age and retirement

    As the report points out, developing active labour market policies and tackling age discrimination are crucial. With over a third of men outside the labour market by the age of 60, for many the debate is not about working beyond 65, but actually about having the opportunity to work as long as age 65. We’ve made some progress on this, thanks in part to initiatives such as New Deal 50 plus. Employment rates for those aged 50 to State Pension Age have now increased by 8% in the last 10 years. There is much further to go, but there’s no dispute that we should try and get there. There is, as the report says, a clear consensus on tackling economic inactivity and breaking down the barriers facing older workers; and success among older workers will be crucial if we are to achieve our ambition of an 80% employment rate overall.

    With the introduction next year of the age component of the EU Directive on Equal Treatment, we are setting in place a legislative framework which ensures that people can not be barred from employment on the basis of age. Mandatory retirement ages below 65 will be prohibited other than in very exceptional cases. And we have been running the “Age Positive” campaign, drawing employers’ attention to the business benefits of an age diverse workforce. We have issued 130,000 copies of the Age Positive Code of Good Practice, which sets the standard for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement.

    There is no consensus, however, around the desirability of raising the state pension age. There is a growing recognition that working longer is going to have to be part of the solution, and we have seen in recent years an increase in the average age of leaving the workforce, after a long period when that age was falling. But many who would agree that we should be removing the barriers to working longer would strongly oppose steps to compel people to work longer, and who can blame them?

    What I think is particularly powerful about today’s report, is the way that it considers public attitudes alongside the reality of the challenges we face. The idea of having to work longer is an emotive subject – we’ve all seen the scare stories and the national newspaper headlines. The Pensions Minister who announces that “we’re going to make you work longer”, and does so without having first built a political and wider national consensus, is likely to be one person whose working life does not end up being extended!

    We need to work with people to understand the reality of the challenges that we face – and contribute to a sense of ownership of the problems and the possible solutions. That’s why David Blunkett and I are engaged in a National Debate in which we are going around the country meeting people of all ages and backgrounds – sharing the problems and listening to their views. We’ve already held events in London and Manchester and we’re in Bristol tomorrow – part of a programme that will run up to and beyond the Pensions Commission report later this year. We want to include as wide a cross-section of views as possible, including academics, trade unions and industry representatives; and we are looking for a ground-breaking political consensus from across the parties.

    Incentives to work longer

    One of the things that has been particularly striking in the early National Debate events, is the extent to which people don’t know about state pension deferral. As a result of last year’s Pensions Act, someone can choose to delay taking their state pension, and be rewarded with a higher state pension – increased by a full 10% for each year of deferral – or a lump sum of, on average after a five year deferral, £20,000 to £30,000.

    You don’t have to defer for five years to obtain a significant reward. A 65-year-old single man entitled to an average state pension of £107.45 who defers for two years would be entitled to an increased pension of over £129 a week, or a lump sum of nearly £12,000.

    People are hostile to the idea of being compelled to do something – but when it is a choice and there are clear incentives to do something, attitudes begin to change. But Peter is right to sound a cautionary note that we don’t yet know how effective these incentives will be. I was in Washington discussing pensions with policy makers in the US last week, and there it is possible to draw your state pension early, at the age of 62 rather than 65 at which the full benefit is payable, at the price of suffering an actuarially fair reduction in the pension you receive. It is striking, as Peter points out, that over half of US retirees choose to start to draw their state pension at 62 rather than waiting for the full rate which they can receive at 65.

    The choices we face

    There is no escaping the tough choices we face as a society. In 1951, just after Beveridge introduced our present pensions system, the typical man reaching 65 could expect to live only a further 11 years. In 2005 this has risen to over 19 years. Life expectancy of a 65 year old has risen by two to three months every year for the past twenty years, and there is no sign of the trend slackening off. It is a wonderful transformation, but the pensions system needs to be adjusted to reflect the new realities rather than the old ones.

    This improvement in mortality has been contrasted by a fall in birth rates over the same period. By 2052 one in four of our population will be over 65. And this is a global phenomenon, and in the UK we are better placed than in many other countries. In China, for example, between 2000 and 2050, the number of people aged 60 or over is set to increase by 250%.

    Adair Turner’s first report offered us four options. Leaving aside the option of pensioners having lower incomes, Adair left us with what’s been called an “iron triangle of choices”. We either save more and/or we increase our taxes and/or we work longer.

    But a key part of the challenge is to build a lasting solution that will work in a changing world – not just for today and tomorrow. We can’t consider these practical choices in isolation from people’s attitudes, nor without thinking about the society and the culture we are trying to build for the future.

    We want the welfare state for the 21st Century to be driven by a something-for-something ethic. Making the most of the opportunity of longer, healthier living means enabling people to contribute to society throughout their lives – not only through the workplace, but through the wider community. It’s why our “Opportunity Age” consultation launched in March, and other cross-Government initiatives, are designed to tackle the fear of isolation by encouraging and supporting older people to contribute to their communities. Only a quarter of over-60s today feel that they can influence local decisions.

    And, of course, the proportion of older people who live alone is likely to increase in the next 20 years. So encouraging older people to build alternative networks of support and interest, and tackling this sense of exclusion are crucial if we are to make the most of the opportunities for our society of increasing age.

    An asset state

    Much of what the Government has done to date has focused on tackling pensioner poverty. To prevent future poverty, the support we provide to enable people to build assets – both at an individual and a community level – will be absolutely crucial. As David argued at an IPPR seminar earlier this month, we face a new equality challenge and increasingly people’s assets are going to be as, if not more, important than people’s income.

    We need attitudes to change towards savings. There is a great need for information that people can trust. It demands that Government and the financial services industry work together with individuals, families and communities themselves to unlock the potential of an asset state.

    The Child Trust Fund, providing a Government contribution to open an account for every child born in the UK after September 2002, offers a first stepping stone to self-reliance, and a stake in the world for those without inherited assets or substantial family income. Savings vehicles like the Savings Gateway, where Government matches the saving contributions of people on low incomes for whom tax incentives for saving offer little attraction, will also play an important role in encouraging saving on the part of future generations.

    Informed choice

    Financial literacy and access to mainstream financial services have previously too often been restricted for many people on low incomes. Last December as Financial Secretary to the Treasury I reached an agreement with the banks that we would work together towards the goal of halving the number of adults in households without a bank account – and to demonstrate significant progress in that direction within 2 years.

    The quality of information that people have, and the extent to which they trust it, will be key. Whether we are talking about pensions forecasts or life expectancy statistics – if people don’t trust this information they won’t use it to change their behaviours. What more we can do to build trust is a key question for Government. But it’s not a question for Government alone. It’s a fundamental question for our communities – for our business ethics – and for the society that we build for tomorrow.

    Tomorrow’s attitudes

    We already know that tomorrow’s attitudes will be shaped by the reality that people are more likely to have ten jobs in a career than one – and they are going to demand ever greater flexibility in how and where they live and work. With increased mobility and an ever greater ability to communicate across the world, our sense of community will not just be about the geographical area where we live, but also about people and friends with whom we share interests, and aspirations for the future.

    And that’s important for the question of increasing the effective retirement age and the State Pension Age. Today’s report argues that the State Pension Age can act as a signal – impacting on the normal retirement ages set by employers and the expected retirement ages of individuals. That is undoubtedly true.

    But the report also points out the deep hostility that people have to the idea of being made to work longer. Far better, one would think, that any future increase in the State Pension Age should be underpinned by a broad consensus that reflects a change in people’s attitudes and understanding; and that any such change, if there is to be one, should be seen less as an imposition that forces people to change their behaviour than as a reflection of the new expectations of individuals and communities in a changing society.

    The State Pension Age is a very blunt tool for changing effective retirement ages. The report recognises the concerns that many of us hold over the potential inequity of raising the State Pension Age when people from less well off backgrounds often have lower life expectancy. Even in a future world where there may be fewer people doing manual work and where general improvements in quality of life could narrow this distribution of life expectancy, it’s difficult to get away from the objection that an increase in the State Pension Age would hit the poorest hardest.

    We need to be quite creative in thinking about this. If we did ultimately increase the State Pension Age, could we take steps at the same time to protect the least well off from losing out? We heard evidence in Washington last week that the Pension Credit and Winter Fuel Payments have extended lives. Do we need to think beyond the traditional concept of a State Pension Age? Could we achieve an increase in the effective retirement age by building on and extending our State Pension Deferral policy?

    Measures in last year’s Finance Act will now give people the option to work for the same employer whilst drawing an occupational pension. This will give employees greater flexibility to plan a gradual move from full time work to retirement. Could we support this with an extension of State Pension Deferral which allowed people the option of deferring some of their State Pension rather than all of it? Could we extend this concept to the State Pension Age – moving from a single date to a series of options where people are incentivised to take some or all of their State Pension later, but where the least well off are not left behind without adequate support? Are there other things we might do within the State Pension to send out the right signals and address people’s concerns about fairness?

    These are the issues we are reflecting on as the Turner Commission finished its work. I’d be interested in your views in the discussion that follows about what more we can do as a society to help people understand the challenges that we face – to show people that we have not made up or imagined the trend in rising life expectancy but we do need to address it. And crucially how we can do more to build trust – not just in Government – or even in statistics and information on life expectancy – but actually across the financial services and within communities themselves.

    And I’d be interested to know what people think about how we prepare for and shape a society that makes the most of longer and healthier lives; that enables older people to contribute fully to their communities and supports them to enjoy the independence and opportunity that we are all entitled to expect in a modern Britain.

    Increasing the effective retirement age needs to work against this background of flexibility and fairness; of community support and financial asset-building; of trust and choice. It can’t be considered in isolation from public attitudes or from the society we are trying to build for the future. But the reality of the challenges we face must shape these attitudes. I welcome this chance for a discussion and I look forward to exploring these ideas further in the coming months of our National Pensions Debate.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Timms – 2005 Speech to NAPF Conference

    stephentimms

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Timms, the then Minister of State for Pension Reform, to the NAPF Conference in Eastbourne on 17th November 2005.

    I’m grateful to Robin and Christine for the opportunity to be here this morning. I last spoke at an NAPF Conference in a rainstorm in Eastbourne, about six years ago, so I am delighted to be here on a beautiful autmunal morning today. And I’m grateful to the NAPF for all its contributions to the National Pensions Debate, on top of all the vital work it has been undertaking for over eighty years in guiding and supporting occupational pensions. We have been very appreciative of all the support and the creative generosity we have received from this Association – and from the industry more generally – in our preparation for pensions reform over the past months. And nobody who has seen the newspapers this morning will be surprised that its my view that we are going to need a good deal more support and advice in the months ahead.

    Somebody told me a story from the 1950s at one of the recent National Pensions Debate events. William was over 80. He had started work on the farm at age 10. He’d wintered it and summered it, man and boy. And one day the young farmer said to him:

    “William, you started on this farm with my grandfather, then you worked for my father, and now it’s me. 70 years faithful service. You have your State Pension I know – but I have decided to give you a few shillings a week, so that you can retire. How would you like that?”

    “All right,” William replied, “if you want me to give up, I will. But mind you, if I’d known this job wasn’t permanent – I wouldn’t have started it!”

    Actually, I haven’t found many people during the National Pensions Debate with that approach to work – my job as Pensions Minister would I suppose be a good deal easier if I had. But I do welcome the NAPF guide “Extending Working Lives: Adapting Pensions for an Older Workforce” to help trustees and managers through the age discrimination legislation and to attract a more age-diverse workforce. It’s a good example of this association supporting and encouraging the good quality occupational pensions which have put Britain in a position today where retirement incomes are better relative to everybody else than has been the case in the past, even though earnings have been rising so fast over the past few years.

    Pensions Reform

    The challenge of pension reform is one of the biggest we face in the months ahead. It is a challenge we relish, and I’m looking forward immensely to working hard with everybody here to get the key judgments right over these next few months. How to ensure we achieve a long-term approach balancing adequacy with affordability; continuing our successful drive to reduce pensioner poverty; making the system more understandable but also correcting historic unfairness, such as the way women have lost out because of a 1940s view of women as being dependent on their husbands.

    Our aim is a ground-breaking political consensus, and we hope the National Pensions Debate will help us achieve it, working with MPs from all parties, not because we want to avoid a row, but because only a consensus can deliver the confidence – that we see as vital – that we are introducing a framework which will endure. We want to engage with insiders, experts in this association and elsewhere, and also with those who have never thought about pensions in their lives before but are increasingly realising how important it is for their future that we get these judgments right.

    I am very enthusiastic about the task ahead, so that we can come forward with the Government’s response to the Pensions Commission report by about the Spring of next year. And I am looking forward to actually reading the Pensions Commission report – published in just under two weeks time – and comparing the real thing with the newspaper reports which have appeared today!

    And once the report has appeared, we need to step up the debate in which with its proposals for a citizens’ pension this association has played such a creative part.

    Occupational provision

    Whatever the form of the state underpin which is adopted, it will for most people be the savings they make on top which will determine whether they achieve the income in retirement which they are aiming for. This has been the rationale for all our informed choice measures designed to inform people and make it possible for them to take control of their retirement planning.

    As we embrace social and economic change; as people find themselves doing ten jobs in a career instead of one – or even having several careers – the support people require to stay in employment and to build their retirement income must also adapt to reflect fundamental changes in our society.

    That’s why we are renewing the welfare state – with welfare reform proposals in the New Year that will go further in tailoring the support we provide to meet the new demands of individuals in the 21st century. And it’s why concepts such as portability and risk-sharing are becoming increasingly important for the success of private pension provision.

    But two truths remain. First – work is the best pensions policy. We can’t tackle inequality of outcome in retirement without also tackling inequality of outcome during working life. And the workplace is the key. That’s why our aspiration of an 80% employment rate is so important. And we’re making progress – yesterday’s employment statistics showed the national employment rate back up to within a whisker of 75% – with 123,000 more people in work this quarter and over 330,000 more than last year.

    The shape of the welfare state is crucial in the way we support people to prepare for retirement. To meet the challenges of supporting an ever healthier – but ever older population – we can’t afford to be denied the skills and contributions of all those who can and want to work. Our welfare reforms will be designed to capture this potential. The reforms will develop active support to help people contribute; they will be underpinned by the values of inclusiveness; they will balance rights and responsibilities. Respect for the individual will be matched by respect by the individual for society; and the need to help people lift leave dependency behind while continuing to provide support for those who simply can not work.

    In all of this, nothing can be allowed to detract from the paramount importance of employer-sponsored pension provision. Employers are key and will continue to be the key to successful long-term pensions reform. It is impossible to envisage a successful future pension system which does not have a central role for employers at its heart.

    The evidence speaks for itself. In 2004, nearly 80% of funded pension contributions came from employers. An employer contribution adds value to the pensions saving of an individual – and it acts as a catalyst for action from the employee too.

    Research published earlier this month shows that with little or no employer contribution, the provision of information and advice alone in the workplace had very little impact on savings behaviour, on pensions knowledge or on attitudes towards pensions. It is very striking that the average take-up of a stakeholder pension where there is an employer contribution is around 70%. Where there isn’t a contribution it’s 13%.

    Today’s NAPF survey again shows that participation rates are higher where employers operate auto-enrolment. Our own case study research has also shown auto-enrolment to be effective for increasing pension scheme membership, reducing administrative burdens for employers and pension providers and also making the whole process simpler for employees.

    So I’m grateful to NAPF for vital pro-active work in supporting occupational pensions and in offering guidance to schemes to help them understand – and sometimes benefit from – new legislation. The new NAPF guidance on clearance is a good example. And all that work is going to be just as vital to our success in the future as it has been in the past.

    Better Regulation

    The contribution of the new Pensions Regulator is making sure that pension liabilities are being treated with a new seriousness today, and that is very welcome, but it isn’t blocking corporate re-structures. The case of Marconi is particularly encouraging – the takeover has gone ahead in a way that promises opportunities for employees; the shareholders are satisfied; and the trustees, who took independent advice, are also satisfied there will be appropriate protection for members’ benefits.

    The Pensions Regulator will continue to examine each case individually, to find solutions to enable corporate activity to go ahead, while ensuring that scheme members benefits are protected. And that balance of economic dynamism with protection of members’ benefits is a key one.

    The introduction of the Pension Protection Fund has provided a new and vital security for pension scheme members, helping build a renewed confidence for the future. I know that the board of the Fund understands very well how important their decisions about the Fund levy will be for all the schemes represented here, following the recent consultation.

    Your survey today shows that the regulatory burden is one of the main concerns that schemes have over the next few years. We are determined to remove unnecessary regulation and simplify regulatory burdens wherever we can. We have set out one of the most radical programmes of regulatory reform anywhere in the world.

    Over the next three or four years, this will deliver year on year reductions in administrative burdens. We will set targets for reducing the burdens arising from requirements for businesses to provide information. A rolling plan of simplification will focus on removing or merging regulation into a more manageable form; resolving overlap and inconsistency; and wider deregulatory measures too.

    We can’t do this on our own – and we don’t want to try to. We can only get this balance right with your support. That is why I’ve established a Better Regulation Stakeholder Group with representatives of the pensions, insurance, and financial services industries. I’m pleased that Joanne Segars is a member of it and has volunteered to sit on the sub-group looking at the measurement of information burdens. We need all the help we can get to deliver the simplification that all of us want to see. So I will welcome from anybody here thoughtful, practical proposals for removing and simplifying regulatory burdens.

    Setting up the new Trustee panel is another example of our seeking to keep under review the balance between regulation and member protection. Most recently our discussions of the draft Member-Nominated Trustee regulations really brought home to me the panel’s value. The members of the panel see issues from a more direct and personal perspective which is of great benefit to me and my officials. It gives me the opportunity of a reality check on some key issues of the moment. And its their view about what is important – I don’t set the agenda, it is very much their forum.

    Socially Responsible Investment

    That previous NAPF conference I spoke at was at the point where the Disclosure Regulations on Socially Responsible Investment were about to come into force. In my Ministerial roles across government since then I have maintain my interest in socially responsible investment and corporate social responsibility, and now back at DWP I am keen to see how the disclosure measure has worked in practice and what we can do to move things forward again.

    Conclusion

    So I am looking forward immensely to working with everybody here to strengthen and renew workplace pension provision, and to strike the right balance between regulation and protection.

    We need the NAPF to be banging the drum for occupational pensions in the coming months – and I know I can count on you to deliver. In supporting employees who choose to work longer; through a renewed welfare state that enables people to lift themselves out of dependency; through contributing to and supporting employees in building their retirement savings – in all these respects, the workplace holds the key to the challenges of an ageing society.

    If together we can harness the potential of the workplace:

    – we can give people the support they need to escape long-term dependency

    – we can empower people to take control of building an income for their retirement

    – and we can look forward with confidence to the benefits and opportunities of longer and healthier lives.

    We can build a new framework for pensions in the UK which will endure for the long term. I’m up for it. I know you are too. Let’s work together.

    Thank you.