Tag: Speeches

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to Scope Disability Summit

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the Scope Disability Summit on 9th March 2006.

    I’m grateful to Tony and Rachel for the opportunity to join you today and I want to assure you of this government’s commitment to working with you to achieve a Britain free from disablism.

    Clement Atlee’s Labour government founded the welfare state not just to protect people, but to empower them. Labour’s Alf Morris, now Lord Morris, led the first drive to change legislation and outlaw discrimination. And last year, through the Disability Discrimination Act, this Labour government completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has so far put in place.

    At every stage we have worked to push the agenda forward; to listen to you and to work with you in leading the struggle to root out discrimination and break down the barriers faced by disabled people in our society.

    But for all the progress we have made; we still need to achieve a lasting step-change in attitudes towards disabled people. Where meeting the needs of disabled people is seen not as a burden but as an opportunity; where institutional disablism is seen not as an inevitable part of the culture of our country but as a fundamental barrier to our success; And where disabled people themselves must never be consigned to accepting second best but empowered and supported to achieve full equality of opportunity and genuine independence and respect within our society.

    So I want to pay tribute to the work of Scope and the DRC for their excellent recent campaigns that have raised awareness to change attitudes – promoting the positive image of disabled people.

    Today’s Disablism Audit shows just how important – and how real – those challenges are, despite the legislative progress we have already made.

    Disabled people are more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications as non-disabled people. They are over three times as likely to be economically inactive and when they are in work, they earn less on average than their peers. Indeed, around a third of young disabled people actually expect by age 30 to be earning less than non-disabled people of their own age.

    And on the day that annual figures are released showing the extent of poverty across Britain, it is telling that disabled people are more likely to be trapped in poverty than non-disabled people; and a quarter of all children living in poverty have long-term sick or disabled parents.

    We simply cannot accept these outcomes.

    So this government is taking steps to tackle institutional discrimination and promote independent living – giving disabled people choice, empowerment and freedom through more joined-up and individualised service delivery.

    We have set up the Office for Disability Issues to co-ordinate and drive forwards our work to deliver substantive equality for disabled people.

    It will create a new national forum which will enable the views of disabled people to be heard by policymakers at the highest level; and ensure that disabled people really are at the heart of public policy – able to influence the development of policies and service delivery that will affect every aspect of their lives.

    The Office for Disability Issues is also working to test practical new ways of delivering services such as through the piloting of “individual budgets”. And it will champion a genuinely “joined up” approach to delivering disability equality right across government. Because disabled people, just like everyone else, don’t divide their lives into separate silos – and we can’t properly tailor our services to meet their needs if we do.

    Because it is, we believe, ultimately by tailoring support to, and empowering, individuals that we can achieve our ambition of true equality. And nowhere is this more true than in supporting people to get into work. That is why we are determined to build on the success of the New Deal, which has helped nearly a quarter of a million disabled people to find work.

    We will now roll out the hugely successful Pathways to Work scheme across the entire country – so that all disabled people claiming Incapacity Benefit can benefit from extra help and support.

    Over the last few years – thanks to the New Deal for Disabled People – the employment rate of disabled people has risen twice as much as for the population as a whole.

    Our proposals in the Welfare Reform Green Paper are underpinned by clear principles. The development of a modern active welfare state that responds to individual need, balances rights with responsibilities and invests for the long term. That provides work for those who can but security for those who can’t.

    We recognise the sensitivity and importance of getting the changes right, which is why we want to work with you to ensure that we take a fair and equitable approach.

    I am grateful to those of you who have already engaged with the current consultation on our Green Paper and I strongly encourage those of you who have not yet done so to contribute your views.

    But today I am going further than that – because as part of the ongoing consultation Margaret Hodge has written to Bert Massie and agreed that we will work with the DRC to develop a “prototype” disability equality impact assessment on our proposals for reform of Incapacity Benefit.

    I hope very much that you will all feel able to work with Bert in contributing your expertise to this process – and helping us to ensure that when delivered, the package of support and the newly designed system meets the goals we have set for it – enabling all disabled people to fulfil their aspirations in the workplace. That is very much what we want to do.

    It’s vital too that we collect evidence about the life chances of disabled people – about the extent of what we are achieving and how much more there is for us to do. That’s why the Government’s Office for Disability Issues is working with disabled people and their representative organisations on ways of measuring progress towards our goal of a fully inclusive Britain. And I expect the ODI to address this in their first Annual Report to the Prime Minister this Summer.

    Because we are committed to developing, though consultation, a set of outcome-based indicators to measure progress towards our goal of achieving substantive equality for disabled people by 2025.

    So let us measure our progress and let us do this systematically; let us celebrate what we have achieved and let us use that as the catalyst to go further.

    Because if we work together we can achieve that step change in attitudes – so people come to view disablism as every bit as corrosive and intolerable as any other form of prejudice and discrimination.

    A truly fair society of equal rights and opportunities for all is our goal. With your help, support and encouragement I believe it is a goal we can achieve.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to the IPPR

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, to the IPPR Conference on 14th March 2006.

    I’m grateful to Nick and the IPPR for giving me the opportunity to join you this morning.

    The relationship between the State and the individual lies at the heart of the pensions debate. This relationship is so important because the state pension system reflects one aspect of a much wider social contract. A contract that binds our country and our communities together, based on the notion that risk should be pooled, that all should contribute according to their means, and that the there is a floor below which no person should be allowed to fall. Our ability to build a lasting pensions settlement hinges crucially on whether we can establish clear roles and clear expectations for that relationship within a rapidly changing world, and which reflects these fundamental values of solidarity and social cohesion.

    If we are to meet the challenge of demographic change – where there will soon be more people over 80 than under 5; and if we are to help the 10 million people identified by the Pensions Commission as not saving enough for their retirement – then a new deal must be struck between the State and the individual.

    One that gives individuals clarity over what the State will do for them and what they must do for themselves. A new deal that meets the five tests that I set out when I last spoke to the IPPR – that is fair, affordable, simple, sustainable and – above all – promotes individuals taking personal responsibility for building the income in retirement that they want and expect.

    But to strike such a deal, we need to do two things.

    Firstly, to achieve a step-change in public attitudes and expectations: Raising awareness of the difficult decisions and trade-offs that have to be managed; building an acceptance that choices have to be affordable, and that could mean working longer and saving more, and persuading individuals that financial prosperity in retirement simply can not be delivered exclusively by the State – that individuals themselves therefore have to step up to the challenge of taking much more personal responsibility for their own retirement planning.

    Secondly, we need to get the balance right between a number of competing aims for the role the State does play. A balance that reflects the newly emerging public consensus – both in terms of what people now demand from the State and what this new deal requires of them – whether as individuals, employers or financial partners.

    This is why we’re having a National Pensions Debate. It is precisely because we want to raise this awareness among members of the public; to allow them to see and understand the challenges we face; and to allow us to listen to their views on the most sensible way to proceed.

    The Government welcomed the broad framework of the Pensions Commission proposals and options. The idea of a stronger State Pension funded by some increase in the state pension age and acting as a platform on which to build a radical expansion in personal saving through access to new and low cost savings options – is absolutely the right basis for the debate. It defines the 2 key roles of the State in this new deal with the individual. Firstly as a provider – funding a minimum income below which no-one is allowed to fall and providing a proper platform on which to build private savings. And secondly, as an enabler – offering the right incentives and regulatory framework for encouraging and supporting an expansion of personal savings.

    The choices we make on pensions reform will ultimately depend on our objectives.

    Lord Turner himself judged that an evolutionary two-tier state pension system was preferable to adopting a single-tier approach such as the citizen’s pension. The citizen’s pension would involve spending large amounts of extra money on helping better off pensioners rather than poorer pensioners, so while it offers greater simplicity more quickly – it does so at the cost of helping better off pensioners instead of others. And it also destroys completely the contributory principle – the concept of something for something – while carrying significant implications for the crucial test of affordability.

    And even with an increase in the State Pension Age from 2020, which I believe is inevitable, affordability still remains the critical test both for the period from 2010 to 2020 and in the longer term.

    Many of this Government’s reforms to date have focussed on fairness for current pensioners and in particular, on tackling the serious issue of pensioner poverty which we inherited in 1997. The Pension Credit has played a crucial role in helping to lift over 2 million pensioners of out abject poverty – and as last week’s statistics show, we’ve achieved a 15% fall in relative poverty in the last year alone.

    Two-thirds of those helped by Pension Credit have been women – many of whom have suffered from incomplete contribution records or been prevented entirely from being able to build up a state pension in their own right. Indeed, among tomorrow’s pensioners, women account for around 60% of those who are not accruing any State Pension in their own right.

    And there’s another critical group of women – currently aged around 45 and over – who are less likely than their younger peers to have benefited fully from Home Responsibilities Protection or to have benefited from increased participation in the labour market.

    The need to achieve better outcomes for women was one of the objectives that led the Pensions Commission to suggest a residency basis for future accruals of the Basic State Pension from 2010.

    The current system is projected to result in around half of women retiring with a full Basic State Pension in 2010. But implementing a residency based approach for accruals from 2010 will offer virtually no immediate help to that core group aged 45 and over, who tend to have poor contribution records and do not now have time to put this right.

    After 15 years, in 2025, when even today’s current system is projected to offer a full Basic State Pension to around 80% of newly retiring women, the residency based approach only improves this to around 85%. And with a full 45-years before it matures into a virtually universal Basic State Pension, that critical group of women aged 45 and over are almost completely missed.

    I believe we should therefore be looking at how we can develop a new contributory principle that gives women a fairer entitlement to the Basic State Pension more quickly – ensuring that we value social contributions equally with cash contributions and move progressively away from a system predicated on a 19th century view of both working lives and social relationships.

    In fact, as modern lives become increasingly more diverse – and men and women alike spend time bringing up children and caring for family and friends – we are not just talking about redressing the balance for women affected by the unfairness of the system in the past – we are talking about reforms that could actually reverse what is now a projected decline in men’s entitlement. This could be a classic win win for both men and women alike.

    Finding a way to extend coverage of the state pension of course goes hand-in-hand with wider coverage of private pension saving – and the role of the State in enabling more people to both take more responsibility and make more provision for their own retirement.

    This means Government providing the right framework to support an increase in private saving. It means getting the right incentives to save, appropriate regulation and protection of those savings; and ensuring access to low cost savings vehicles such as the National Pension Savings Scheme suggested by Lord Turner.

    Finding the right approach to achieve a personalised, flexible tool that can enable people to save at low cost, is I believe a key part of any long-term pension solution – and crucial for individuals and families to take personal responsibility for their retirement planning.

    Lord Turner’s scheme still remains the one to beat – but the question of whether to compel employers to contribute is a finely balanced one – especially when considering the potential impact on small businesses.

    What is clear is that the role of the State as an enabler and its role as a provider are inextricably linked. Reforms to the state pension scheme, must provide a clear foundation on which people can save with confidence. And they must therefore by definition, seek to halt the otherwise inevitable spread of means testing.

    As research from the National Institute for Social and Economic Research commissioned by my Department makes clear, means-testing has played an important role in improving outcomes for today’s pensioners – and I believe the Pension Credit will rightly be an important part of any future pensions settlement.

    That same research also showed that for middle-income households means-testing could be a disincentive to save and that allowing Pension Credit to extend further up the income distribution was not expected to generate any further benefits from work or saving.

    We want future generations to aspire to saving for retirement incomes above the level of means-testing and that means giving people confidence that they are not going to have savings unfairly clawed back through means-tested benefits.

    As well as a clear platform on which to build, the State must act in a way that gives people the confidence to save.

    Our responsibility must be to set the right regulatory framework. That is what the Pension Protection Fund and the new Pensions Regulator can offer. And with the Financial Assistance Scheme we have been able to offer help to some of those who have lost out the most in the past – while the Pension Credit has, of course, also ensured a minimum income floor.

    But I know from the recent meetings I have had with people who have lost much of their pension when their defined benefit pension scheme wound up under funded, that they believe they have been robbed of their pensions. And I completely understand that feeling of injustice.

    So while we should always be prepared to look at how we can help people trapped in this situation, we must be clear that taxpayers cannot guarantee the value of occupational pensions on behalf of employers. That would take away the responsibility from employers – where it properly lies.

    And pension forecasts are an important tool to help with this. Since their launch in October 2001, nearly 6 million combined pension forecasts have now been issued showing a State Pension forecast alongside information on private pension savings. Quantitative research is showing that these forecasts can and do influence people’s savings behaviour – and I’m very keen that a much more widespread and regular provision of forecasts should be an integral part of any long-term pensions settlement.

    Ultimately, delivering this new deal between the State and the individual – requires us to achieve consensus on a lasting settlement. It requires us to deliver an integrated long-term State package that explicitly links state pension reforms and incentives to encourage more private savings. And it requires us to achieve that shift in public attitudes so that the changes we make are seen not as personal intrusion into individual lifestyles – but that instead, genuinely reflect the new expectations of individuals and communities in a changing society.

    One of the reasons why, for many decades, the UK has not fulfilled its social, cultural and economic potential, is because too often Governments of all colours have been tempted by the short-termist quick fix. It is all too easy for politicians to avoid the challenges of long term reform. But one of the hallmarks of this New Labour Government has been our explicit determination to take decisions that are in the long-term interests of the country. Whether giving the Bank of England independence to set interest rates or setting child poverty reduction targets that stretch over decades not just years, and sticking to them however difficult and challenging they are to meet. This Government has shown itself able to put the collective long-term vision above short-term political gain.

    Pensions is perhaps now the most important test of our resolve to continue in this vein. To create that national consensus; achieve that step-change in public attitudes; and deliver a new deal between the individual and the state.

    I believe it is right for our economy and for our society that we meet this challenge of long-term reform,. We have always made the argument that a economic efficiency and social justice go hand in hand. That you cannot have one without the other. Establishing a new national consensus on pensions reform will be one of the greatest challenges we face in our third term in office. If we are clear about our values and what we want to achieve, then we can lay these new foundations on which successive generations can plan for their future.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to DWP City Strategies Conference

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the DWP City Strategies Conference on 9th May 2006.

    Thanks for coming here today – and to Dave (Simmonds) from Inclusion and the Local Government Association for hosting this conference with us.

    When we launched our Welfare Reform Green Paper in January most of the attention focussed on our proposed reforms to incapacity benefit. The replacement of Incapacity Benefit with a new Employment and Support Allowance will, of course, be a crucial step towards modernising the benefit system.

    But the Welfare Reform Green Paper was about more than changes to individual benefits. At its heart was the vision of a modern active devolved welfare state, based on a new contract between the State and the individual. A contract that extends support and opportunity in exchange for engagement and responsibility. A contract that lifts the summit of our ambition beyond simply getting people back into work to one that seeks to sustain their careers and progress up the job ladder. And a new contract between State and communities to share the challenge of tackling worklessness and poverty in Britain. This is why the new City Strategy is so important.

    We have set an aspiration of an 80% employment rate. It is at the heart of our response to the growing global challenges of social, economic and demographic change.

    The measures we proposed in the Green Paper will make a significant contribution to this aspiration – reducing the numbers on incapacity benefit by one million; and getting one million older workers and 300,000 extra lone parents into work.

    But as we said in the Green Paper, a modern welfare state also means modern forms of welfare delivery. Delivery that’s effective, accessible and flexible.

    In the few months that I have been in this job, I have been struck by scale of the challenge that we now face to renew our welfare delivery system to meet the conditions of the modern economy. Despite the success of the economy and the progress that we have made in improving employment rates across the country, there are still significant pockets of worklessness that blight the prospect of individuals and communities.

    When I think about the challenge of getting a million individuals off incapacity benefit, I think about the need to construct a welfare delivery system that is able to adjust to the needs of a million individuals. Each with their own stories and challenges. Each with their own needs. I very much hope that the Welfare Reform Green Paper can be a catalyst for a wide ranging debate about how we can modernise delivery so that it is able to respond to the needs of millions of individuals. I hope that our City Strategies will be a practical expression of that ambition.

    Tailored support to tackle worklessness is unlikely to be compatible with a bureaucratic, top down, statist model. Instead, it needs an enabling state – one that empowers local institutions to develop local solutions; one that gives local stakeholders the freedom to innovate and the flexibility to work together combining and aligning their efforts behind shared priorities; and one that mobilises the resources not just of the public sector, but of the private and voluntary sectors as well – in a new drive to extend opportunity and prosperity.

    This I hope is the shared vision and ambition that brings us here today.

    Today there are more people in work than ever before – with some 2.4 million more than in 1997 and the biggest increases in the neighbourhoods and cities that started in the poorest position. And we’ve lifted 2.4 million out of relative poverty – including 800,000 children.

    But we must now go further in breaking the cycle of deprivation and tackling the remaining barriers that trap people in pockets of worklessness – areas of poverty that are especially prevalent in some of our major towns and cities.

    The UK has a relatively small number of areas with an employment rate below the EU average – but nearly all of these are in major cities.

    15 of the 20 local authorities with the lowest employment rates are in cities. Nearly one-fifth of the working age population in Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool are on benefits as either lone parents or incapacity benefit recipients. And, in total, our cities account for almost two-thirds of all those on benefits.

    Take London, for example. It is the wealthiest city in Europe; productivity 25% higher than the rest of the UK; and a quarter of the workforce educated to degree level. And yet London now has the highest level of worklessness – and the highest level of child poverty in mainland UK. Nearly half of children in inner London are poor. We can and must improve on this.

    We know that worklessness causes poverty. And the clear link between benefit dependency and poverty is shown by the simple fact that half of the most severe pockets of deprivation in the country are contained within the hundred parliamentary constituencies with the highest number of incapacity benefit claimants.

    If we were to increase the employment rate for London merely to the current national average – over a quarter of a million more Londoners would be in work. And if we were to do the same for the 20 biggest cities in the UK – again just increasing their employment rates to the current national average – we’d see over half a million more people in work – helping themselves, their families and their local economies.

    We know what a difference local initiatives and local solutions can make. The Welfare to Work forum in Glasgow, for example – a private sector led initiative working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, the Scottish Executive, the City Council and other public sector bodies – has set ambitious targets to reduce the numbers claiming out-of-work benefits by 15,000 by 2007 and 30,000 by 2010. By the end last year they had already reduced benefit dependency by 11,000 – with around 3000 of those having been on incapacity benefit. It has been a huge success story.

    Manchester City Council are already aligning £1.75m per annum of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund money to fund a Stepping Stones Project that has helped more than 1000 people on Incapacity Benefit get back to work – by bringing together the support of Jobcentre Plus, Manchester City Council and The Employment and Regeneration Partnership.

    And in Edinburgh, the Capital City Partnership and the Joined up for Jobs Strategy launched in 2002 has seen a hugely successful move towards the development of demand led programmes, better aligned funding, and a delivery model which can help the most disadvantaged get into work. One of many achievements from this project has been to bring all of the city’s blackspots to within 5% of the city employment rate of 75.5%.

    Across the country we see the difference that local solutions can make. But we also see the barriers to those solutions – whether it is a lack of flexibility in the system or complexity around funding and accessing different pots of money.

    In London, for example, there are well over 70 different funding streams all designed to tackle worklessness and promote regeneration.

    The City Strategy is about pooling these resources and creating new flexibilities for local partners to work together within a community to improve economic regeneration through skills, employment and health. A consortium of local partners using new seed-corn funding and new flexibilities to show how they would deliver real improvements in the proportion of local people in work in their local areas.

    We have high ambitions for this initiative; we want to push the boundaries of flexibility and devolution and to do so in a way that best meets the needs of individual towns and cities.

    We’re asking towns and cities to submit expressions of interest which identify the key players in the consortium; the key groups that will be targeted for help; the ways the consortium will make better use of existing resources and improve outcomes for the target group; the barriers faced and flexibilities needed to overcome these barriers; and how they will measure progress towards stretching outcome targets.

    We’ll be asking for expressions of interest in particular from towns and cities with the highest numbers out of work. Those who have already built a business case as part of the New Deal for Towns and Cities will just be able to use or adapt this business case. I want the process to be as simple and clear as possible.

    The Welfare Reform Green Paper Consultation highlighted the importance of minimising the burden on resources needed at the initial selection stage – we have listened to these views and that is why we have avoided a more complex bidding approach. And we’ll be issuing clear light touch guidance very shortly.

    In assessing the expressions of interest, we will focus on the degree of disadvantage, the anticipated evidence-based performance improvement, the breadth and effectiveness of the proposed partnerships and the scope of innovation in using resources and overcoming barriers.

    We want to focus the initial pathfinders on areas that are furthest from the national 80% employment rate aspiration – but, depending upon the success of this first round, we intend these pathfinders to be the forerunners to a wider roll-out. So areas that are not successful in the initial bidding process will be encouraged to prepare themselves for a later roll-out and, where possible, supported to take forward specific elements of their proposed initiative. This may include, for example, looking to grant additional flexibilities to overcome barriers highlighted in the expression of interest.

    We intend to announce the Pathfinder areas that have been successful before the end of July. We will then work with these areas to draw-up detailed delivery plans many of which could be being implemented before the end of this year.

    For these successful pathfinder areas, we will make available seed-corn funding as a flexible pot for consortia to spend as they see fit. Outcome-based funding will be then available at the end of the agreement period based on measurable achievement against agreed targets.

    We’re creating a new £90 million Deprived Areas Fund which pools together money from the Action Teams, Ethnic Minority Outreach and Working Neighbourhoods Pilots that are coming to a close. This new fund will be more strongly focussed on – and give more money to – the most disadvantaged parts of the country.

    It will give each District the flexibility to decide the type of support which would be most effective in meeting the needs of the local area, whilst ensuring value for money. And in City Strategy Pathfinder areas, this money will be seed-corn money over which the Consortia will have complete control and total flexibility to use.

    Yesterday’s 2nd report on local Government by Sir Michael Lyons emphasised the importance of greater freedoms and the balance of power between Whitehall and local areas. Real success in tackling worklessness will demand a renewal of that balance – with more local choice to improve national prosperity.

    We believe that by empowering you – local organisations and local stakeholders – we can begin the journey towards devolving aspects of the welfare state so that it is responsive to the needs of individuals and local communities. A welfare state that incentivises local partnerships to meet objectives through a new deal with Government that’s based on shared outcome targets and maximum discretion to do what it takes to make a real and sustained difference.

    This I believe is the essence of modern welfare delivery. An approach that has the potential to make a radical and lasting difference in helping people off benefits and into work; in making sure that if people get jobs they are able to stay in work and not return to benefits; and in beginning to see people progress through the labour market by acquiring work-placed skills, confidence and ambition to do more.

    I am under no illusion that the task of modernising our welfare system to meet these challenges, of changing the culture within Whitehall to respond to local flexibility and delivery, will be difficult. But I believe there is a growing consensus that a one-size fits all, top down solution to policy making and delivery is increasingly unsuited to the challenges we face. I will make sure that at the Department for Work and Pensions we will work with others and play our part in overcoming those challenges. Beginning a process of policy renewal that will help us to better address the endemic problem of worklessness facing many of our major towns and cities. Looking to the future. Being prepared to adapt and change. Always being prepared to develop new and better tools through which we can support local re-generation and economic development.

    Many of you here today will be willing to work with us to prove this new approach can succeed. Together we can set a new direction of travel – harnessing the contributions of all those who can make a difference – whether in the public, private and voluntary sectors. And in the process, we can help improve the wealth and prosperity of Britain’s major towns and cities. Thank you.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to Fabian Society

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Fabian Society on 10th May 2006.

    When Tony Blair announced in the first term of this Labour government that we would seek to end child poverty in a generation he set a target that encapsulated much of our ambition and aspiration for our country and its people.

    Anger about poverty and the hope that it could be eradicated has driven progressive politics from the French Revolution to the foundation of the Welfare State. Our historic mission to eradicate child poverty by 2020 reflects the roots of our social democratic movement – and articulates a path to our ultimate aim of equal life chances for all.

    So I want to begin, first of all, by thanking the Fabian Life Chances Commission for their excellent work in stepping up the debate on this crucial issue, culminating in their comprehensive final report to which I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond today.

    The Commission has made a number of recommendations, about which I want to say more shortly.

    But while they are rightly pushing us to do more, I also welcome the fact that the Fabians have recognised the important steps we have already taken in both setting our goal of eliminating child poverty and making real progress towards it.

    We are now close to the European average for child poverty – instead of bottom as we were in 1997 – and we’ve made the biggest improvement of any EU country. There are more people in jobs than ever before: 2.4 million more than in 1997. The numbers on benefit have fallen by around 1 million. And with around two-thirds of the working age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of the G8 countries.

    Today we are achieving growth with fairness. Since 1997, incomes have grown strongly for all groups but the poorer two-fifths have seen larger proportional increases in incomes than the better off.

    As a result of this progress there were 800,000 fewer children in low income in 2004/05 than 1997. The proportion of children living in workless households has fallen from 18.5% to 15.9% – a reduction of nearly 370,000. And the lone parent employment rate has increased from 46% in 1997 to over 56% in Spring 2005. These are encouraging statistics. And behind each and every one of them are families and children who now have a better chance of getting on in life than they had before.

    As well as increasing employment rates, we’ve targeted financial support at low-income families. Tax credits are benefiting around 6 million families and 10 million children. And by October 2006, as a result of our reforms to the tax and benefit system, families with children will be on average £1500 a year better off in real terms than in 1997, while those in the poorest fifth will be, on average £3400 per year better off.

    Compare that to the legacy left by our predecessors. A passive benefit dependency culture obstructed any hope of delivering equal life chances, with millions of people on benefit and with no expectation of a return to work.

    Between 1979 and 1997 the poor did not share fairly in rising national prosperity.

    The largest increases in incomes were concentrated on the most well-off. Inequality in the UK rose faster and further than in any other country. And while Britain got steadily healthier as a nation, the number claiming unemployment benefits rose by 50% and the number claiming lone parent and incapacity benefits more than trebled.

    And, inevitably, with benefit dependency came poverty. By the mid-to-late 1990s, the UK suffered higher child poverty than nearly all the other European nations. Over a period of 20 years, the proportion of children in relative poverty had more than doubled and by 1997, one in every three babies born in Britain was born poor.

    The Conservatives now say they have signed up to our child poverty target. I welcome this. But it will take more than words to deliver on it. All of the measures we have taken to tackle child poverty have been opposed by the Tories. Tax Credits; Sure Start; The Minimum Wage; The New Deal; the list goes on and on. It’s no good willing the ends if you remain opposed to all of the means. These kind of promises are simply empty and hollow.

    It is true that we ourselves have not yet gone far enough, and equally true that as we deal with each successive challenge that confronts us, fresh challenges appear on the horizon. But the hallmark of New Labour is that we are a party that is prepared to dig deep to find new responses to new situations, and we will continue to do so. Policy renewal is not an event scheduled to take place at some time in the future. It is a process underway now.

    When earlier this year, despite significant progress, we fell short of our interim target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004/05, we did not go quiet or try and re-define the target to make it easier to hit. The target is the right one. It’s our delivery mechanisms that have to improve.

    Our challenge is now to accelerate our progress on tackling poverty, not sit back. And we know we must be bold in embracing whatever it takes to help us achieve our goal.

    Ultimately child poverty is the principal determinant of life chances. Children born into poverty are more likely to be premature, have low birth weight, die in their first year of life or from an accident in childhood.

    We know that an infant who grows up in a poor family is less likely to stay on at school, or even to attend school regularly; less likely to get qualifications and go to college; more likely to be forced into the worst jobs, or no job at all; and more likely to be trapped in a lifelong cycle of deprivation that prevents them from fulfilling their potential.

    Worse still – there are strong associations between youth crime, parental crime and child poverty, with children born into poverty being far more likely both to be victims of crime and to offend themselves.

    So Labour’s child poverty targets are not simply about responding to the moral imperative to act, though that is clear. Allowing children to grow up in poverty means storing up long-term problems which will ultimately undermine social cohesion and social progress. We cannot have a strong society and a strong economy unless we address the problem of child poverty. That is why it is a shared objective of both DWP and the Treasury.

    And it is why I am making tackling child poverty the Department’s number one priority.

    In every area of policy development and delivery – across the full range of functions and responsibilities in the DWP – Ministers will be asking the question – what will be the impact on child poverty?

    When we’re delivering our welfare reforms – we must be clear about how we can best help those more likely to be in poverty – such as disabled people, where over a quarter of poor children are in households with at least one disabled adult.

    When we’re considering reform options for the Child Support Agency – how many children can we lift out of poverty? We know that receipt of child maintenance currently helps to lift 100,000 children out of poverty. The successful implementation the changes I announced in February could lift a further 40,000 children above the poverty line. The redesign being led by Sir David Henshaw must take us even further.

    Even our reforms to pensions and savings will be important. The way in which society recognises and rewards social contributions – such as the work of carers or the contribution made by many women who have given up work to look after children – doesn’t just impact on life chances today but affects the nature of the society we create for tomorrow.

    And of course, promoting financial inclusion is crucial to overcoming poverty. Increasingly inequality in asset-ownership threatens to become the social divide of the future. That’s why the Child Trust Fund is important in ensuring all children have a financial asset at age 18. And it’s why we’re looking at how we can improve our use of the Social Fund – which together with the Growth Fund – is increasing the availability of affordable credit to low-income families and helping them to build their way out of poverty.

    All these policies will play an integral part in the government’s wider drive to tackle every facet of social exclusion – a drive that will be led by Hilary Armstrong in her new role in the Cabinet Office.

    This Autumn, alongside our annual “Opportunity for All” progress report, the Department will be setting out its new strategy for how we can make faster progress in reaching our goal of halving child poverty by 2010. We would welcome the thoughts of all those who share our goals as part of this work. The Fabians have of course given us much food for thought already, and the Life Chances Report will help fuel the debate that we will continue over the summer in the run up to outlining our strategy for the years ahead.

    In the remainder of my remarks, I want to set out the direction on which we must now focus, and comment in more detail on some of the specific recommendations of the Life Chances Commission.

    The Commission recommends a number of measures related to increasing benefit levels in order to lift people out of poverty – increasing child benefit, introducing a ‘pregnancy premium’ to income support, and raising out-of-work benefits across the board.

    We will always consider raising benefit levels where it is appropriate and affordable to do so. Child Benefit for the first child has increased by more than 25% in real terms since 1997. And in this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced a commitment to increase the child element of Child Tax Credit at least in line with earnings until the end of this Parliament. This will mean an additional £200 million for families in 2008-09 – and at least as much again each year until the end of the Parliament.

    But at the heart of our work going forward must be an integrated approach that makes a sustained difference to child poverty. Even increasing benefits in line with average earnings will do little to help families escape poverty, if median income is increasing at roughly the same rate.

    Ultimately, to lift people clear of the poverty line and to give them the tools they need to prosper in the longer term, we need to ensure that everyone who can work has the help and support they need to do so.

    This is the principle that has always underpinned the British Welfare State – from the its early days under Asquith and Lloyd George – to its full development under Clement Atlee’s Labour Government. It was conceived as an active, empowering force. The State would ensure there was a floor below which no person could fall. But the principle responsibility to do everything possible to support yourself and your family would rightly remain on the individual. Because it is, in the end, the opportunity to work that can provide the only long-term, sustainable pathway out of poverty.

    That’s why New Labour’s approach to tackling child poverty hasn’t been simply about redistribution, but actually about promoting work as the best route out of poverty. It’s why we created a National Minimum Wage and tax credits to make work pay; why we’ve invested in Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal to help people find work; and maintained a strong economy that sees everyone sharing in the benefits of record economic growth.

    The Commission suggested we should consider raising the top rate of tax as part of our anti-poverty drive. Matters of taxation are of course the responsibility of the Treasury. We have a progressive system of income tax. Since 1997 we have made reforms to the tax system that have increased help for those on low incomes – rightly so. But we have no plans to raise income tax in the way you have recommended. And I don’t believe it would send out the right signal to do so.

    Our focus should, instead, be on doing more to get more people into work, breaking down the remaining barriers that people face in getting jobs so we can extend employment opportunity for all.

    Around 40% of poor children live in lone parent households – and the majority of these are non-working. And yet we know the difference that helping lone parents into work can make. A significant proportion of our progress so far in tackling child poverty is due to helping lone parents move into work. And raising the lone parent employment rate further to our target of 70% would mean a further 200,000 children lifted out of poverty.

    In the Welfare Reform Green Paper we proposed a measured increase in obligations on lone parents to come in and talk to a personal adviser about the options open to them. These proposals could lift many more children out of poverty and increase the lone parent employment even further. But we should be prepared to keep these arrangements under review, and potentially consider further support and incentives to help get more lone parents back into work – especially when by 2010 we will have the guarantee of universal wrap-around childcare in place.

    But it’s not just policy change that can make a difference to employment rates – modern localised welfare delivery can transform our most disadvantaged communities.

    The UK has a relatively small number of areas with an employment rate below the EU average – but nearly all of these are in major cities. 15 of the 20 local authorities with the lowest employment rates are in cities. Nearly one-fifth of the working age population in Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool are on benefits as lone parents or incapacity benefit recipients. And, in total, our cities account for almost two-thirds of all those on benefits.

    Take London, for example. The wealthiest city in Europe; productivity 25% higher than the rest of the UK; and a quarter of the workforce educated to degree level. And yet London now has the highest level of worklessness – and the highest level of child poverty in mainland UK. Nearly half of children in inner London are poor.

    Yesterday I launched a new City Strategies initiative designed to tackle worklessness and poverty in our most disadvantaged towns and cities.

    With the City Strategies, local partners form consortia and bid for seed-corn funding and new flexibilities by showing how they could deliver a stretching and measurable improvement in the proportion of local people in work. We’re inviting expressions of interest from the most disadvantaged towns and cities – and incentivising them to find local solutions to local problems with a deal based on shared outcome targets and maximum discretion to do whatever it takes to make a real and sustained difference.

    I believe this has the potential to transform welfare delivery – pushing the boundaries of flexibility and devolution and helping us take a major stride both towards our aspiration of an 80% employment rate and the elimination of child poverty.

    But getting people off benefit and into work can only be part of the answer. It is a striking fact that around half of the children living in poverty in Britain today live in a household where an adult is in work. These are largely couple families who do not work enough hours or earn enough to escape poverty. Analysis shows that at the minimum wage, typical couple families need a full-time and a part-time worker to move out of poverty.

    We must never under-estimate the strain of trying to make ends meet and bring up kids alone. Yet it is clear that it can often take more for low-income couples to lift themselves out of poverty than it does for single parents.

    It’s also the case that children with the very lowest incomes are more likely to be in couple families. Of children in households below 50% of median income, nearly two-thirds are in couple families.

    So helping the in-work poor means that we must always be ready to look at new ways of encouraging second earners into work; continue to ensure that people will be better off in work than on benefit, and do more to improve skills and progression in the labour market.

    This last point is particularly crucial when you consider that today our economy has 9 million highly skilled jobs – but by 2020 will need 14 million highly skilled workers. And whereas today we have 3.4 million unskilled jobs, it is estimated that by 2020 we will only need 600,000.

    Conclusion

    Ultimately, our ability to respond to the challenges of demographic and economic change hinges on the opportunities, skills and experiences of tomorrow’s workforce. And at a time when the integration of communities has perhaps never been more important – our social cohesion will depend on our social mobility.

    So to eliminate child poverty by 2020 we need an effective cross Government approach – pushing forward with our reforms of public services to offer ever greater choice and flexibility to meet the specific needs of individuals; breaking the cycle of dependency and tackling discrimination and prejudice in our society.

    Later this month we are publishing a research report which explores the characteristics of children from poor backgrounds who go on to escape poverty and achieve economic success as adults. It provides strong evidence for early interventions in making the biggest difference to life chances.

    That means delivering accessible and high quality education, health and social care. It means improving the quality of housing and reducing the number of families living in all forms of temporary accommodation. And it means continuing to develop the provision of childcare, enabling people to balance their work and parenting responsibilities.

    Our vision is of an opportunity society – enabled by a powerful new drive against the barriers that hold people back, with work at its core; targeted support for those who need it most and high quality public services that offer individuals and communities the kind of life chances that in the past have only been available to the wealthy.

    Only by realising this vision can we offer every individual and every generation the opportunity and support to raise and fulfil their aspirations. But if we can do this – if we can break the cap on aspiration that traps people in poverty and unlock the door to social mobility – so we can realise the ultimate goal of our modern social democracy – an end to child poverty and equality of life chances for all.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech on Women and Pensions

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Fabian Women’s Network on 18th May 2006.

    Next week the Government will set out its proposals for reforms to our pensions system to help more people achieve greater financial security in retirement. Our White Paper will lock in the huge progress we have made since 1997 in tackling pensioner poverty, and set a new direction to meet the fresh challenges we face in the decades ahead.

    A compelling case for change was set out by the Pensions Commission last November. Three challenges stand out in particular.

    Firstly, we are living longer. Of course this is good news. But it also means that in future there will be fewer and fewer people in work to support people in retirement, and in our system, it is the contributions of those in work that pay for the pensions of those who have retired. By 2050 there will be 50 per cent more pensioners than today. And there will only be 2 people of working age for every pensioner – compared with 4 for every pensioner today and 10 people 100 years ago.

    Secondly, we are not saving enough. The Pensions Commission themselves calculated that between 9 and 12 million people are not saving enough for their retirement.

    And finally, the current system is overly complex – possibly the most complex in the world. People often find it hard to work out whether they will be better off if they save or if they don’t. And it delivers unfair outcomes, particularly for women and carers, about which I will, of course, say more shortly.

    I agree with the Pensions Commission that there isn’t a pensions crisis today. But there will be one in future if we don’t take action now to address these problems. Passing on the problem to the next generation to deal with would be simply to wash our hands of the problem. We can’t do this.

    Central to this Labour Government’s programme of reforms – whether for public services or the welfare state – is the idea of an enabling state: Government giving people the tools and the support they need to provide for themselves. In truth, this has always been at the heart of our concept of a welfare state. It must remain so in the future too.

    Just as the introduction of National Insurance contributions sought to do at the beginning of the last century, the next stage of pension reform must also imbed the same basic principle of personal responsibility in helping future generations plan for retirement.

    And in doing so these reforms must, first and foremost, help establish a new pensions savings culture where future generations can aspire to saving for retirement incomes above the level of means-testing, having confidence that they will be better off saving than relying on means tested benefits. In simple terms, the state pension package should ensure that it pays to save – that there’s something in it for both the saver and the taxpayer.

    The right way ahead has already been mapped out by the Pensions Commissioners – Lord Turner, Jeannie Drake and John Hills. They recommended:

    A new low-cost savings scheme to give people an effective vehicle to save for their own retirement.

    A higher state pension in return for a higher pension age as a means to allow all pensioners to share in the growing prosperity of the nation, promoting personal saving by giving people confidence that this will always be worthwhile.

    And a fairer system that properly rewards the contributions made by women and carers.

    We said at the outset that we accepted the basic framework of the Commission’s proposals, subject to the five key tests of promoting personal responsibility, affordability, simplicity, sustainability and, crucially, fairness.

    The proposals we will publish next week will address the challenges the Pensions Commission described and meet those five tests. Following the blueprint Lord Turner recommended, this Labour government will set in motion the biggest renewal of our pension system since Clement Attlee’s post war Labour Government implemented the Beveridge reforms.

    Our proposals will be underpinned by a new deal for women that tackles the inequalities of a system that reflects an outdated view of family relationships, properly recognising the different ways in which people contribute to our modern society today.

    It is, of course, this issue of fairness to women on which the Fabian Society, the Parliamentary Labour Party and so many of the people in this room have campaigned so effectively for years. I want to pay tribute to the work you have done and the impact you have made. You have highlighted an injustice. Now we must put it right.

    Tackling inequality in our society and promoting fairness and opportunity for all lie at the heart of our Labour movement and the social democratic tradition we represent. As a Government, these values define our policy agenda and drive our vision of the future.

    Since 1997 we have made important progress in tackling poverty and discrimination and in breaking down the barriers that prevent people from fulfilling their potential. From last week’s Age Positive campaign to Civil Partnerships – we’ve sought to tackle prejudice and exclusion in every segment of our society

    We’ve already implemented the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has put in place. And we’re breaking down barriers to work – with increased employment rates for disabled people, minority ethnic groups, lone parents and for women as a whole.

    Many of our pension reforms to date have focussed on fairness for current pensioners and in particular, on tackling the damaging legacy of pensioner poverty which we inherited in 1997. The Pension Credit has played a crucial role in correcting for the policy mistakes of the Tory years – helping to lift over 2 million pensioners of out abject poverty and 1 million pensioners out of relative poverty. Today, pensioners are no more likely to be poor than anyone else – a huge turn around since we came into office.

    Two-thirds of those helped by Pension Credit have been women – many of whom have suffered from incomplete contribution records or been prevented entirely from being able to build up a state pension in their own right.

    When Barbara Castle first sought to get to grips with this problem in 1978, she introduced Home Responsibilities Protection. Groundbreaking in its day, it meant that for the first time the vital contribution to society made by those caring for children was recognised by being counted towards entitlement to the Basic State Pension.

    And the State Second Pension, introduced in 2002, meant that for the first time some caring responsibilities were reflected not only in Basic State Pension entitlement but also in access to a Second Pension. Each year, 5.5 million women and carers are now credited in to State Second pension as if they were earning £12,500 a year.

    Both Home Responsibilities Protection and the State Second Pension have helped to improve pension entitlements for both women and carers. And women aged 25 to 45 are now as likely as men to be building a State Pension record.

    But among tomorrow’s pensioners, women still account for around 60% of those who are not accruing any State Pension in their own right. And many carers are still excluded by a system which does not fully accommodate the greater flexibility of modern lives.

    Amongst those reaching retirement recently, around 85% of men have entitlement to a full Basic State Pension, compared with around only 30% of women – and only 24% on the basis of their own contributions.

    In particular, there’s critical group of women – currently aged around 45 and over – who are less likely than their younger peers to have benefited fully from Home Responsibilities Protection and who may not have returned to – or kept in touch with – the labour market in the way younger women have.

    The need to achieve better outcomes for women was one of the objectives that led the Pensions Commission to suggest a residency basis for future accruals of the Basic State Pension from 2010.

    The current system is projected to result in around half of women retiring with a full Basic State Pension in 2010. But implementing a residency based approach for accruals from 2010 would offer no immediate help to that core group aged 45 and over, who tend to have poor contribution records and do not now have time to put this right. Indeed, with a full 45-years before it matures into a virtually universal Basic State Pension, the residency based approach completely misses this critical group of women now aged 45 and over.

    We simply can not afford to miss this key group or indeed to wait that long. That’s why at the heart of next week’s reforms will be a new contributory principle that gives women a fairer entitlement to the Basic State Pension more quickly – while ensuring that we value social contributions equally with cash contributions and move progressively away from a system predicated on a 19th century view of both working lives and social relationships.

    As with a residency approach, our approach will mean that by 2050 around 95% of women will receive a full Basic State Pension. But unlike the residency approach, we believe we can achieve better outcomes for women much sooner – such that in 2010 when the residency approach has made no impact and leaves only 50% of women retiring with a full Basic State Pension, our proposals will mean 70% entitlement to a full Basic State Pension.

    And after 15 years, in 2025, when even today’s current system is projected to offer a full Basic State Pension to around 80% of newly retiring women, the residency based approach may only improve this to around 85% – while our proposals will achieve over 90%.

    This means that, under our proposals, up to 270,000 more women will get a full Basic State Pension in 2020 – possibly in the region of 180,000 more than under a residence-accrual based scheme.

    What’s more, by changing the system of credits to better reflect the different ways in which people contribute to society; and simplifying the system such that each and every year of contributions count towards the Basic State Pension, we will be better able to accommodate the greater flexibility of modern lives – in particular extending new recognition and state pension entitlement to many carers not currently supported by the existing system of Carer’s Allowance and Home Responsibilities Protection. And there are a range of other technical requirements that impose further obstacles in the way of women acquiring a full pension. It is right that we look again at these rules so that every year counts towards calculating entitlement.

    Certain patterns of working and caring exist where – in an extreme example – a woman may be doing a combination of work and caring for 30-hours a week but not be able to accrue any State Pension. This is simply wrong – and our new contributory principle will end this injustice – finally placing cash and social contributions on an equal footing.

    I think the public are behind these changes too. In a recent survey, almost four out of five people thought that carers should get the same amount of State Pension as someone who had worked all their life.

    And at the National Pensions Day, the majority of people believed that paid work, voluntary work, caring for children, caring for the sick and disabled, and time spent long-term sick or disabled and unable to work should all count towards the additional State Pension.

    But it’s also a contributory principle, which unlike a residence test, retains the crucial link between rights and responsibilities – that principle of something for something that defines the role of the modern welfare state. And as with our Welfare Reforms earlier this year, it makes clear the expectation that all those who can do so – should contribute to our society.

    So it’s a principle which doesn’t just pass the fairness test but passes all of the five keys tests. It’s fairer and simpler, sustainable and affordable – but most crucially of all – it promotes personal responsibility.

    Next week’s White Paper will strike a new balance of responsibility between the employer, the State and the individual. It will continue to protect the poorest pensioners from poverty and ensure that all pensioners share in the growing wealth of society. But it will also equip each and every individual – male or female – with the tools they need to save adequately for their retirement; recognising and rewarding the contributions they make to society and helping them to build the retirement income that they want and expect.

    I hope our proposals will form the basis of a new consensus on a long-term solution to how we provide an effective pensions system in our country. A consensus that has been shaped by all that we have learnt from both the Turner Report and the National Pensions Debate – the final report of which we will publish early next week. And a consensus which puts fair outcomes for women at its core.

    Fair outcomes for women is the measure of our intention – and we are happy to measure our progress towards this goal. Our Women and Pensions Report last November assessed the challenge we face – now we will go one step further and assess the impact of our policies in meeting this challenge.

    But it is true that we will only truly eliminate inequality in retirement – when we also eliminate inequality in working life. That’s why we must also continue to build on the progress we’ve made in supporting women in the workplace through the National Minimum Wage and our investment in delivering universal wrap-around childcare by 2010.

    We’ve already reached the highest female employment rate of the major EU countries but women in full-time work still earn on average 13% less than men. Until we have eliminated that gap in pay, income and assets and broken the glass-ceiling for progression through working life, we won’t fully eliminate the inequalities that lead to only 38% of today’s working-age women contributing to a private pension compared with 46% of working-age men. And which see women who do save for a private pension contributing significantly less on average than their male counterparts.

    The Equal Opportunities Commission once said – “if we get it right for women, we’ll get it right for everyone”

    We’ll only get it right for women when we’ve got it right in working life and retirement. But I truly hope and believe that with next week’s pensions reforms we’ll not only achieve the basis for a new lasting pensions settlement – but in doing so move a great deal closer to our goal of true equality and opportunity for all women.

    Thank you.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to TUC Disabilities Conference

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the TUC Disabilities Conference on 24th May 2006.

    Introduction

    Thank you Mandy.

    I’m grateful to Brendan and the TUC for giving me the opportunity to join you this morning.

    Last year we set out our ambition to deliver substantive equality for disabled people by 2025. It’s a vision that goes to the very heart of what I believe the Labour Party and Trade Union movement are about. An equality of opportunity that goes beyond basic civil rights; that stretches back to Beveridge in seeing the right to work as fundamental to tackling poverty and building aspiration for everyone in our society. An equality that brings recognition and respect for all – from the workplace to the high street – whether as consumers of goods and services– or as workers and citizens.

    It’s a vision that we as a Labour and a Union movement have been working towards for many years.

    Progress since 1997

    In the last few years – thanks to the campaigning work of the TUC and many others we’ve come a long way. Last year the Disability Discrimination Act completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has so far put in place. Among its many provisions – was a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people – a real milestone in helping to eliminate the institutional disadvantage that many disabled people still face.

    The Act fulfilled our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. I hope people will see it as a major landmark on the road to a world in which disabled people can be empowered to live independently – fully recognised and respected as equal members of society.

    But for all the legislative progress we have made – we know we will not reach our long term goals while many disabled people remain unfairly excluded from the workplace – or poorly supported within it.

    Over the last few years – thanks to our investment in Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal – the employment rate of disabled people has risen twice as much as for the population as a whole. The New Deal for Disabled People has seen over 83,000 job entries since its launch in 2001 – with nearly 300,000 disabled people helped into work through the total package of New Deal programmes.

    And through the Minimum Wage and tax credits we’ve tried to ensure that work pays.

    But for all this progress – we know that we still have very much further to go if we are to achieve our goal of substantive equality for disabled people.

    Disabled people are more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications as non-disabled people. They are over three times as likely to be economically inactive – and when they are in work, they earn less on average than their peers. Indeed, around a third of young disabled people actually expect by age 30 to be earning less than non-disabled people of their own age.

    Disabled people are still more likely to be trapped in poverty than non-disabled people; and a quarter of all children living in poverty have long-tem sick or disabled parents.

    We simply can not accept these outcomes in our society today.

    We share the belief that for those who can – work is the best route out of poverty. It’s the bedrock of personal responsibility, dignity and wellbeing. The challenge we face today is how to build a modern welfare state that allows people to exercise this fundamental right to work, when our national economy is changing more rapidly than at any time since the industrial revolution.

    And it is not only our economy that is changing. We are confronted by a rapidly ageing society and a falling birth rate. Soon, and for the first time in our history, there will be more people over the age of eighty than under the age of 5.

    We have to respond positively to these challenges. That’s why we have set ourselves the ambitious goal of an 80% employment rate. I do not underestimate the scale of this challenge. It will mean a million fewer claiming incapacity benefit, a million more older people in work and 300,000 more lone parents off benefit.

    But its achievement will be critical for the nation and our economic and social well being – for individuals; for families and communities; for wealth creation and economic competitiveness; and crucially – for true equality and social justice.

    Meeting the challenge

    Our Welfare Reform proposals are designed to help us meet this challenge. They are underpinned by clear principles – the development of a modern welfare state that responds to individual need, balances rights with responsibilities and invests for the long term. That provides work for those who can and security for those who can’t.

    A new benefit system founded on the concept of measuring and building up each individual’s capacity rather than writing people off as incapable – and a radical extension of the support available for every Incapacity Benefit claimant – underpinned by the extension of Pathways to Work to every part of Britain by 2008 – bringing new hope and opportunity to some of the most disadvantaged members of our community.

    We know the difference that Pathways can make. In the first year of the pilots the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability had increased by around two-thirds compared with the same period the year before. Their continued success has driven a significant increase in the proportion of people leaving Incapacity Benefit in the first six months of their claim compared with non-pilot areas. And this early success has underpinned our achievements in helping people off Incapacity Benefit – with new cases down a third since 1997.

    And with the first falls in the total count – now down 61,000 in the year to November 2005 – we know that the support available in Pathways can make a difference for existing claimants as well as new claimants.

    By October this year – around 900,000 Incapacity Benefit claimants will be eligible for the support provided by Pathways – and by 2008, every claimant will be able to access this support if they choose to do so.

    And it doesn’t stop there. Our new approach to delivering welfare and employment support services in cities, together with the new Deprived Areas Fund will help to tackle the remaining pockets of poverty and worklessness in our most deprived areas.

    But let me make one thing clear. We will never forget our obligations to provide security for those who can’t work – and as we pledged in our manifesto – our reforms to Incapacity Benefit ensure that these people will receive a higher level of benefit while being able to access employment support on a voluntary basis.

    So the extension of support that is on offer with these welfare reforms represents a huge opportunity to help all those on Incapacity Benefit who want to work, to exercise their right to do so.

    But we can’t grasp this opportunity alone. Every partner must play their role – working together to drive a lasting change in public attitudes towards disabled people. Employers need to see the benefits, opportunities – and frankly economic necessity of employing disabled people.

    And within and across Government – we need a properly joined up approach. That’s why we have set up the Office for Disability Issues to co-ordinate and drive forwards our work to deliver substantive equality for disabled people. A new national forum will enable the views of disabled people to be heard by policymakers at the highest level; and, along with the new Public Sector Duty, ensure that disabled people really are at the heart of public policy – able to influence the development of policies and service delivery that affect every aspect of their lives.

    The Office for Disability Issues is also bringing Departments together to test practical new ways of delivering services such as through the piloting of “individual budgets” – and it’s championing a genuinely “joined-up” approach to delivery disability equality right across Government. Because disabled people – just like everyone else – do not divide their lives into separate silos – and we can’t properly tailor our services to meet their needs if we do.

    Consultation/conclusion

    But I do recognise the sensitivity of this issue and the important of ensuring that the detail of our reforms help deliver our objectives in practice.

    That’s why we’re working with the Disability Rights Commission in developing a joint “prototype” disability impact assessment of our proposals for Incapacity Benefit.

    Later next month we will produce our response to the consultation ahead of introducing legislation to Parliament. I’m committed to engaging with and listening carefully to all who have responded to our Consultation; and to all of you who share our commitment to improving the employment prospects of those currently living on benefit.

    And I believe that with your help we can shape the development of our welfare state so that it better responds to individual need, balances rights with responsibilities but provides security for those who need it.

    So the time for action is now – to drive forwards that change in public attitudes; to refine and deliver new employment support for disabled people in the most efficient and most effective way; and to enable each and every disabled person to fulfil their ambitions and make their contribution to society – whether that means getting into the workplace – or developing and progressing within it.

    Substantive equality for disabled people is our ambition – nothing short of this will do. If we work together we can achieve it – and in doing so build a truly fair society of equal rights and opportunities for all.

    Thank you.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech on Pension Reform

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to Parliament on 25th May 2006.

    With permission Mr Speaker I should like to make a statement on the future of our pensions system.

    Our first priority has been to tackle pensioner poverty.

    Compared with 1997, we are spending more than £10 billion extra each year on pensioners. Almost half of this spending is going to the poorest third. We’ve raised the minimum income from a totally inadequate £69 in 1997 to over £114 today. And as a result, for the first time in a generation, pensioners are now less likely to be poor than anyone else.

    We have acted to tackle the loss of confidence in the private pensions market. We have legislated to clear up the pensions mis-selling scandal, created the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund.

    We established the Financial Assistance Scheme to help some of those who stood to lose the most from schemes that collapsed before 14 May 2004. I know, Mr Speaker, that many members have been concerned that the scheme is limited to those within 3 years of retirement.

    My Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister announced in March that we were expediting a review of the Financial Assistance Scheme. I am delighted to announce today that the scheme will be extended to cover eligible people who were within 15 years of their scheme’s normal retirement age on 14th May 2004. Under this extension, the Government will top-up to 80 per cent of expected core pension for those within seven years of scheme pension age, 65 per cent for those within eight to eleven years of scheme pension age and 50 per cent for the remainder.

    So we have made real progress on pensioner poverty. Despite these improvements there remain significant challenges.

    We established the Pensions Commission in 2002 to consider what reforms might be necessary to meet them. And I am grateful to three Commissioners – Lord Turner, Jeannie Drake and John Hills for the work they have done.

    In their report last November, the Commission made clear that there was no immediate “pensions crisis” – but that there would be if we did not act soon. They identified four major challenges.

    Firstly, they found that between 9 and 12 million people are not saving enough for their retirement.

    Secondly, they estimated that by 2050 there will be 50% more pensioners than today. And over the same period, the ratio of people in work to those in retirement will halve.

    Thirdly, as a result of historical legacy, the current State Pension system is complex and delivers unfair outcomes – especially for women and carers. Of those recently reaching State Pension Age, 85% of men have a full entitlement to a Basic State Pension compared to only 30% of women.

    Finally, if we maintained currentindexation, the Basic State Pension might be worth only £35 by 2050 in today’s earning terms and over 70% of pensioner households could be eligible for Pension Credit – never the Government’s intention.

    The Commission urged the government not to duck the long term challenge of reform. Mr Speaker, I believe the proposals in our White Paper I am publishing today address the challenges the Pensions Commission identified.

    We will therefore introduce a new system of personal accounts that will make it easier for more people to save.

    We will reform state pensions so that they are simpler and more generous.

    We will modernise the contributory principle and make the state pension fairer and more widely available.

    We will increase the State Pension Age – keeping the proportion of life spent receiving the state pension stable for each generation and helping to secure the long term financial stability and sustainability of the state pension system.

    Let me take each of these in turn.

    A new system of personal accounts will be introduced from 2012, providing over 10 million people with the opportunity to save in a low cost savings vehicle. Employees will be automatically enrolled into either their employer’s scheme or in the new personal account but will have the right to opt out.

    The accounts will provide a simple way for people to take personal responsibility for building their retirement income.

    Employers will be required to contribute 3% of employee earnings in a band between £5000 and £33,000. Employees will contribute 4% on the same band of earnings and a further 1% will be contributed in tax relief.

    I recognise Mr Speaker, that these changes represent a major change in the pension system. Accordingly we are taking steps to help smooth the introduction of this reform. Employer contributions will be phased in over at least 3 years. The contribution rate will be fixed in primary legislation. In order to minimise the burden on the smallest businesses, we will consult on additional transitional support and whether a longer phasing period is needed.

    However, the government is clear that reforms to private pensions must go hand in hand with reforms to the state pension system.

    Mr Speaker, during the next Parliament, we will re-link the value of the Basic State Pension to average earnings. Our objective, subject to affordability and the fiscal position, is to do this in 2012, but in any event at the latest by the end of the Parliament. We will make a statement on the precise date at the beginning of the next Parliament. This will help to preserve the value of the basic State Pension. We will also simplify the State Second Pension so that it gradually becomes a flat-rate weekly top-up to the Basic State Pension.

    This means that a person retiring in around 2050 who has been in employment or caring throughout their working life could receive a contributory state pension worth £135 a week in today’s earnings terms – which is £20 a week above the guaranteed income level. Without these reforms people retiring in 2050 would receive a total contributory state pension worth between £90 and £100 a week – well below the means tested threshold.

    We will continue to up-rate the standard guarantee in the Pension Credit with average earnings from 2008. The Pension Credit will continue to help the poorest pensioners. But we will also be able to limit the spread of means testing. We will make an immediate start on this by modifying the calculation of the Savings Credit from 2008. This gives a clear indication from the outset of our determination to make clear people’s incentives to save. As a result of this change and our restoration of the earnings link, by 2050, far from rising to 70%, we estimate that only about a third of pensioners will be eligible for Pension Credit.

    Our reforms to the State Pension must also achieve fairer outcomes for women and carers. But we do not believe that a residency test for future accruals as proposed by the Pensions Commission would be the right way to achieve this. It would offer no immediate help to a group of women aged 45 and over who have poor contribution records and no time to put this right.

    That’s why, Mr Speaker, from 2010 we will introduce radical changes to the current rules – reducing the number of years needed to qualify for the Basic State Pension to 30 and improving the system of credits to better reflect the different ways in which people contribute to society.

    As a result, by 2010 70% of women reaching the State Pension Age will receive a full Basic State Pension, compared with 30% today. By 2020 up to 270,000 more women will get a full Basic State Pension – approximately three times the number under a residency-based approach.

    Mr Speaker, we propose to increase the State Pension Age in line with life expectancy. The State Pension Age for women is already due to rise from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020 to equalise with men’s State Pension Age. There will be a subsequent rise for both men and women from 65 to 66 over a two year period from 2024 – and further increases, also over two years, to 67 starting from 2034 and to 68 from 2044. No-one over 47 today will be affected by these changes.

    Finally Mr Speaker, today’s White Paper proposes a number of simplifying measures that will streamline the regulatory environment. We will abolish contracting out for defined contribution schemes at the same time as we restore the earnings link. We will reduce the burdens on schemes by bringing forward legislation to allow them to convert Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights into scheme benefits – reforms that will, I believe, be of significant benefit to employers and employees.

    We will bring forward legislation to begin implementing these reforms in the next session.

    Mr Speaker, in November I set out five tests for the reform of our pensions system. They needed to promote personal responsibility, be fair, especially to women and carers, simple to understand and affordable and sustainable for the long term. I believe we have met these tests.

    Today’s White Paper seeks to entrench a new pensions savings culture where future generations can take increasing personal responsibility for building their retirement savings.

    Mr Speaker, while there will always be specific individual circumstances, such as debt or stock market performance, which will affect people’s savings, fundamentally these reforms mean that people should be better off in retirement by having saved.

    What’s more, this package of reforms continues to protect the poorest pensioners from poverty. And for the first time, delivers fair outcomes for women and carers with a modernised contributory principle operating within a more simple overall architecture.

    Over the period to 2020, our proposals broadly keep spending on pensioners as a proportion of national income constant at today’s levels – helping pensioners to share in rising national prosperity.

    In the long term, the rise in the state pension age will help secure the long term financial stability and sustainability of the state pension system

    Together it represents a comprehensive, integrated package of reform. I believe it can lay the foundation for a new and lasting consensus on a long-term resolution of the pensions challenge we face as a country.

    I commend this White Paper to the House.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to NAPF Conference

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the NAPF Conference on 8th June 2006.

    I’d like to start by thanking the NAPF, its members – and many of its guests here today – for all that you have contributed to the pensions debate – not just in the last few months but over a number of years – as we have sought to build a long term response to the pensions challenges that we face as a nation.

    No-one should underestimate the scale or the importance of that task. Building a long term approach requires all of us – whether individuals, policy experts or political parties – to see to what extent we can agree our objectives and then to work together to develop new and innovative solutions to achieve them.

    The voice of the NAPF has been at the centre of the national pensions debate and your contribution has been crucial to the progress we have made. Our White Paper builds on long-standing big picture NAPF ideas – a simpler, fairer state pension, with broader coverage less means-testing and a clearer foundation on which to build private savings. And I think it’s important to recognise that when you welcomed our White Paper at the end of last month – you were setting aside previous disagreements over specific policy measures in favour of getting behind this wider package – showing real leadership in being prepared to work with us to develop the detail of our proposals and consolidate the emerging consensus on a lasting pensions settlement. I want to thank you for the leadership you are showing.

    I do believe that the proposals we announced in our White Paper address the three big questions at the heart of the pensions challenge.

    Firstly – how we remedy the problem of undersaving – affecting perhaps as many as 12 million people. The introduction of personal accounts combined with compulsory minimum employer contributions and automatic enrolment will help to embed a new pensions savings culture and overcome some of the many practical barriers that prevent people from saving for their retirement.

    Secondly – how we make the State system fairer and simpler, with less means testing – ensuring it provides a better platform on which to encourage and support a sustained expansion of private savings. I believe that our reforms to modernise the contributory principle and enable more women and carers to qualify for the State Pension will deliver much fairer outcomes more quickly than other approaches. And that by restoring the earnings link and simplifying the State Second Pension we will make the State Pension simpler and more generous – while reducing the spread of means-testing.

    By 2050 only about a third of pensioners will be eligible for pension credit, instead of some 70% if current uprating policies continued. And of this third, only about 6% will be receiving the guarantee credit alone – meaning that in the vast majority of cases, those receiving pension credit will be actually being rewarded for voluntary saving. That has got to be the sensible thing to do.

    And thirdly – but absolutely critically – how we make the reforms affordable and therefore sustainable over the long term. That’s why we’ve said that we will aim to make the changes in 2012, subject to affordability and the fiscal position. We’ve made it clear that we won’t risk jeopardising the public finances – it would be completely irresponsible for any Government to say otherwise. Over the period to 2020, our proposals broadly keep spending on pensioners as a proportion of national income constant at today’s levels – taking advantage of the savings realised by the decade of State Pension Age equalisation and helping pensioners to share in rising national prosperity. And, of course, over the long term the rise in the State Pension Age in line with life expectancy, will help to secure the financial stability and sustainability of the state pension system.

    With these reforms, I believe we can begin to change the pensions landscape in Britain. Our challenge now is how we take this forward. And it’s this, rather than the reforms themselves on which I would like to focus my remarks today.

    Just as the NAPF has played a crucial role in laying the foundations for a consensus on a long-term solution – so we must now work together as we refine the detail of our proposals and seek to implement them.

    Of course, one key area will be around the specific design of the new personal accounts. We have already said that we want to consult on the best administration model for personal accounts – particularly on whether there is value in offering consumers a choice of branded provider. And we announced earlier this week that will be hosting a summit before the end of July on their design and introduction – as well as engaging with our key stakeholders in advance. I hope the NAPF will be at the centre of this work.

    Over and above this, I am conscious that personal accounts have to work alongside existing and future provision – and as we said in the White Paper, while we don’t think that Supertrusts have all the features needed for Personal Accounts, we are interested in looking at whether Supertrusts could work alongside personal accounts to offer more choice in pension provision. We need to test this idea further.

    Because it’s not about one type of provision at the exclusion of another – but actually supporting the widest range of suitable options that will allow people to plan and achieve the income in retirement that they want.

    This brings me to two immediate challenges that I think we need to address as we seek to develop our reforms over the coming months and to embed that long-term consensus. And they are challenges where I believe the NAPF and its partners can play a particularly important role.

    The first is around strengthening existing pension provision, reducing the burden of regulation and making it easier for employers to provide good workplace schemes. And the second is around how we encourage and enable people to make the most of this existing provision and support people in the retirement planning decisions they make today.

    I’d like to say just a few words about each.

    The proposals in the White Paper are designed to encourage a radical extension of private pension saving – but this must be in addition to, not in place of, existing pension provision. Many of you here today will be associated with employers who already provide high quality pension schemes with valuable employer contributions and high-quality support and advice for their staff.

    This has been one of the fundamental pillars of the success the UK pensions system to date – and the NAPF has been at the heart of supporting such provision for over 80 years.

    The evidence for why this matters speaks for itself. In 2004, nearly 80% of contributions to funded occupational pension schemes came from employers. And the evidence about the value of an employer contribution was one of the main reasons why we opted to make employer contributions compulsory with the new system of personal accounts.

    So it’s absolutely crucial that we continue to support good quality existing employer provision. The White Paper talked about measures to reduce the regulatory burdens and to make the system simpler for employers and providers. It was probably the part of the White Paper that got the least coverage – but it’s absolutely critical if our reforms are to be successful.

    Last year’s NAPF survey highlighted how the regulatory burden is one of the main concerns that schemes anticipate over the next few years.

    We have already set out measures which, over the next three or four years, will deliver year on year reductions in administrative burdens. And we will set targets for reducing the burdens arising from requirements for businesses to provide information.

    But we are determined to go further in removing unnecessary regulation and simplifying regulatory burdens wherever we can. The abolition of contacting out for defined contribution schemes – as the Pensions Commission recommended – will reduce administrative complexity and remove a key source of confusion for individuals. And the the change to allow occupational schemes to convert Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights into scheme benefits – will all take us further towards a more streamlined, less bureaucratic system.

    But the rolling deregulatory review offers further potential for radical change. We’re kicking this off in the next month and many of our key stakeholders, including the NAPF, have agreed to join the Advisory Group that will guide the direction of this work.

    The White Paper gave a list of possible elements for this review. I want to make it clear today – that this list is the minimum of what we are prepared to consider. We want the deregulation agenda to be led by those of you out there who are actually involved at the sharp end of pension provision. And we want you to drive both the scope and content of this review. Nothing is off the table. Our objective is not about merely re-writing legislation or tinkering around the edges but a real drive to cut red tape and to make it easier for you to deliver workplace pensions.

    Because, ultimately, this is the way to strengthen existing provision and enable employers to continue to provide high quality schemes in a new and changing economic climate. We have to strike the right balance between simplification and protection – between deregulation and good governance. You can help us get this balance right.

    The second crucial challenge we face – is how we then encourage and enable people to make the most of this existing employer pension provision.

    It was the first of the Pensions Commission reports that first highlighted the scale of this, showing that for the earnings bracket with the most people in it – namely those on £10,000 – £20,000 – there were more people who decide not to join their employers’ contributory scheme than there are workers who have no pension and no access to a scheme. Indeed – there are some 4.6 million workers who are not taking advantage of contributory schemes that their employer provides.

    And last year’s NAPF survey found that nearly 1 in 10 of your members work for organisations where fewer than 20% of all eligible employees belong to the scheme and half work for organisations with scheme participation rates below 60%.

    The White Paper has proposed automatic enrolment as the norm for pensions in the future. For many this will be into the new personal accounts – but for many others it could be into existing occupational pension schemes. And we know what a difference this could make. In case studies of private sector firms automatic enrolment has been clearly associated with increased participation rates. For example, in one firm the participation rate went from 25% for existing employees to 80% for new joiners who were automatically enrolled.

    So there’s a key challenge for us to work with employers, unions and all our partners so more people consider joining their occupational schemes ahead of auto-enrolment being introduced.

    Information and education will be crucial to meeting this challenge. That’s why the Pensions Education Fund is so important – in helping people to understand and take advantage of available pension provision. Your “PensionsForce” initiative – launched this afternoon – will help many people benefit from impartial and accurate information that will increase their awareness of the need to plan for retirement and the options available to them. In particular it could help many women, and workers in small and medium sized enterprises who tend to have lower access to a pension contribution and who tend to be bypassed by the advisor community – as well as workers who have access to a workplace pension, and employer contribution, but who do not take full advantage of it.

    Pension forecasts are also important tool to help with this. Since their launch in October 2001, over 7 million combined pension forecasts have now been issued showing a State Pension forecast alongside information on private pension savings. Quantitative research is showing that these forecasts can and do influence people’s savings behaviour – and I’m very keen that a much more widespread and regular provision of forecasts should be an integral part of long-term pensions reforms.

    Ultimately, that long-term settlement requires us to achieve a shift in public attitudes such that the changes we make are seen not as a personal intrusion into individual lifestyles – but that instead, they genuinely reflect the new expectations of individuals and communities in a changing society.

    It is an evolving social contract. One that will hopefully bind the generations together. One that’s based on the notion that risk should be pooled; that all should contribute according to their means and that there is a floor below which no person should be allowed to fall. But one that’s also based on an understanding that the individual has a responsibility to take every opportunity to support themselves and their family – whether it be in employment or in retirement.

    I believe the role of the workplace is crucial in helping us to achieve this renewal of the contact between the individual and the state. And the proposals in the White Paper rightly have a central role for employers at their heart. We must now do all we can to support employers in strengthening existing provision and enabling people to start saving now.

    I’m confident that we can respond to this challenge – and I look forward to working with you over the coming months as we refine the detail of our proposals and continue to forge a truly national consensus – one that will enable us to put in place a sustainable, affordable and trusted pensions system that will enable both current and future generations to save for a long and healthy retirement.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to Welfare to Work Convention

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Welfare to Work Conference in Birmingham on 19th June 2006.

    In our modern economy, faced with all the challenges of technological, social economic and demographic change, I believe our welfare system can and will play a central role in helping Britain grow and prosper as a country.

    It must always ensure there is a floor below which no person can fall. But it must do much more than this. It must support and help people make the most of their talents and skills. It should provide a bridge to walk on – not a platform to stay on. It must help our economy and our people adapt to change.

    By investing in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus we have begun to replace the one-size-fits-all, re-active system of benefit dependency of years gone by, with a new approach based on tailored support to help people back into work and new obligations for people to do everything possible to help themselves.

    And throughout this process of reform, we have locked in a set of decent, progressive values – of universality and opportunity; of security and equity – underpinned by an equality of opportunity that stretches back to Beveridge in seeing the right to work as fundamental to tackling poverty and building aspiration for everyone in our society.

    So our principle objective in welfare reform today must be to design and deliver the most effective and efficient re-employment services anywhere in the world. With providers being properly incentivised to deliver the best possible services to the customer, and where job seekers are actively engaged in finding work or improving their employability. We are seeing progress in all of these areas.

    Today there are more people in work than ever before – with over 2.5 million more than in 1997. The biggest increases have been in the neighbourhoods and cities that started in the poorest position. And, as last week’s OECD report showed, not only do we have the highest employment rate of the G7 countries – now, for the first time in 50 years, we also have the lowest combination of unemployment and inactivity rates.

    But we have much further to go. The challenge we face today is how to build a modern welfare state that allows people to exercise their fundamental right to work – at a time when our national economy is changing more rapidly than at any time since the industrial revolution.

    Managing such change is one of the biggest challenges facing social and welfare policy – not just in this country, but in developed countries all around the world. But while the pace of change can seem daunting, the forces that lie behind these changes represent progress not decline. They hold out more opportunities than threats. If we can take full advantage of them, they extend the chance to end social injustice, poverty and exclusion in our society.

    Our welfare state must adapt to meet this challenge and to seize the opportunities it presents. That’s why we’ve set ourselves the aspiration of an 80% employment rate. I do not underestimate the scale of such an ambition. It will mean a million fewer claiming incapacity benefit, a million more older people in work and an extra 300,000 lone parents off benefit.

    But its achievement will be critical for the nation; for our economic and social well-being. For individuals; for families and communities; for wealth creation and economic competitiveness; and crucially – for equality and social justice.

    Our Welfare Reform proposals are designed to help us meet this challenge. They are underpinned by clear principles – the development of a modern welfare state that responds to individual need, balances rights with responsibilities and invests for the long-term. That provides work for those who can and security for those who can’t.

    A new benefit system founded on the concept of measuring and building up each individual’s capacity rather than writing people off as incapable. And a radical extension of the support available for every Incapacity Benefit claimant – underpinned by the extension of Pathways to Work to every part of Britain by 2008 – bringing new hope and opportunity to some of the most disadvantaged members of our communities.

    This is a vision for the future direction of welfare reform that has been widely welcomed during our consultation on the Green Paper published in January. Many of you here today will have been among the 600 organisations and individuals who responded to the consultation – and among the 5000 people who attended almost a hundred events during the formal Consultation Period.

    I am very grateful for your input and for all the comments and suggestions that we have received.

    Today we are publishing on our website our response to the Consultation – together with our response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee report on Incapacity Benefits and Pathways to Work.

    We’ve listened carefully to concerns that the adoption of Jobseeker’s Allowance rates in the Employment and Support Allowance would penalise disabled young people.

    We believe that the alignment of the basic rate of the Employment and Support Allowance with JSA is a crucial part of the simplification of the system – and that the abolition of age-related payments is an important part of the shift to a functional, capability-based system that doesn’t simply write-off people’s future potential on the basis of their age or general assumptions about the incapacity associated with a specific condition.

    But I am absolutely clear that it would be absolutely wrong to discriminate against young disabled people. It was never our intention to do so. That is why we have decided that young people will now get the same basic allowance in the main phase of the Employment Support as everyone else. Additionally, we have decided that young people will also have special provisions to get access to contributory Employment and Support Allowance without the necessary contribution record, as is the case now with incapacity benefits.

    There were also strong concerns from employers over our proposals to simplify Statutory Sick Pay – and in particular to abandon the three waiting days. Our intention was to simplify the process of administering the scheme while maintaining that crucial balance between helping to keep costs down and retaining protection for the most vulnerable employees. Employers felt that the simplicity they would gain from these changes was not sufficient to outweigh the loss of flexibility that waiting days gave them – so we have decided not to proceed with these proposals at this point and instead to continue working with employers’ and employees’ representatives to consider alternative approaches to simplification.

    Most importantly – today’s response to the consultation is not the final word. Key elements of the policy consultation are still ongoing. In particular, it’s critical that we get the gateway to the benefit right – and we are continuing to review the design of the new Personal Capability Assessment.

    We are particularly conscious of how important mental health is within this. There are around 1 million people on Incapacity Benefit because of a mental or behavioural disorder – that’s more than the total number of unemployed people on benefit.

    Studies show that many people with mental health problems want to work. Yet people with mental health conditions have the lowest employment rate of any disabled group.

    That’s why we have created review groups, involving both technical and stakeholder experts, to look at the mental health as well as physical components of the assessment.

    For example, the current PCA mental health assessment does not clearly distinguish between people with a mental illness and those with a learning disability. The review will ensure that the revised PCA provides a more accurate assessment of the cognitive and intellectual difficulties faced by people with a learning disability, through better evidence gathering from more appropriate sources, and better focus on the functional limitations that result.

    So we are continuing to listen. And I hope you will continue to work with us as we take forward the detail of our policy proposals.

    But I also hope that you will work with us on another crucial area – namely the modernisation of our welfare delivery.

    The national roll-out of Pathways and creation of the Cities Strategy offer a huge opportunity for opening up new ways of delivering employment services to some of the most disadvantaged people and communities.

    Our economy will benefit enormously from these changes. To lay the foundations for a system of welfare delivery that embraces diversity of provision as the norm and not the exception. That recognises that the world is not neatly divided into two halves – a public sector built on values and ethics and a private sector, somehow devoid of these attributes, but efficient and responsive. That this is an outdated, lazy caricature. Instead, we need a dynamic and effective market where good providers are properly rewarded, whether they come from the public, private or the voluntary not for profit sectors.

    Our capacity to manage this new environment – where the boundaries between public and private will necessarily change – will determine our ability to deliver our wider public policy objectives.

    So our success in tackling poverty and worklessness – and our ability to preserve the values of social justice which we hold dear – hinge not on preserving the existing system of welfare delivery – but on modernising it; not on standing back and celebrating what we have already achieved with Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal – but on driving forward and building on that success; harnessing the powerful engine for change that markets can provide without sacrificing the principle of equity which markets, if not properly regulated, can so easily undermine.

    This new and emerging system of devolved active welfare needs to be managed by Government within a clear framework where outcomes as well as values are prioritised. I believe there are five key tests we need to meet to make this new welfare system work in the way it should.

    Firstly – we need to get the right incentives. To attract the best providers and incentivise them to deliver substantially better outcomes – outcomes that match our social objectives. To create an incentive structure that properly rewards providers for helping more difficult cases – and not just focusing on the easiest to help; that supports innovation and enables effective risk management; and that reflects our ambition not simply to help people move into work but to help them stay in work. In developing this new approach we can build on what we have already learned in the Employment Zones.

    Secondly, flexibility. To empower local institutions to develop local solutions – combining and aligning their efforts behind shared priorities. Facilitating new contracting structures and delivery models that allow for greater flexibility in inputs in exchange for greater improvements in outcomes; breaking down the barriers of short-term stop-go contracts that too often stifle innovation or even act as barriers to entry for potential providers; and more synchronisation of tendering timetables to allow greater flexibility over the bidding process, for example, enabling providers to bid for larger contracts with clusters of districts.

    I accept that in this area we have a lot of work to do. The City Strategy and the roll out of Pathways to Work give us the opportunity to make real progress here. In Glasgow and Manchester for example, real progress has already been made in getting local agencies working together to tackle worklessness with excellent results. We need to see more of this across the UK as a whole.

    Thirdly, accountability. The success of this approach will hinge critically on the monitoring of performance outcomes and the clarity of sanctions and rewards. We need clearly defined, robust mechanisms for monitoring performance which recognise the power of the consumer and don’t try to micro-manage from the centre or obstruct local innovation. We have reached the high-watermark of centrally imposed targets. We need a different type of intervention from the centre – one that successfully balances the tension between achieving high quality bespoke services that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of millions of different individuals – and yet still operates within a nationally defined rules structure, regulating quality with clear sanctions and rewards.

    Fourthly, information. Providers need clear information over what’s expected of them and when. They need confidence in the transparency of the procurement decision making process and a stronger sense of stability and co-ordination across Government and its agencies contracting with this market. Accuracy and availability of Information on quality of outcomes will be the critical currency for evaluation and will underpin the effectiveness of the rewards structure. And we need a clear assessment of the potential for new players to enter and the impact they could have on existing players. It’s not just Government that needs to know which providers are doing well. So do those who are seeking work.

    Finally, personalised outcomes. The ultimate test of the effectiveness of these reforms is the extent to which it can embed a new degree of personalisation into welfare delivery – with ever greater tailoring to the specific needs of individuals – and an ever greater range of tools with which to help people.

    So I believe that in meeting these tests, the next decade has the potential to be the most exciting time for providers of welfare services. But it will also be the most challenging.

    I hope and expect that new providers will emerge. Existing providers will need to adapt to the new demands of a welfare delivery system that is characterised by a clearer focus on customer service; a new degree of efficiency that delivers real value for money for the taxpayer; more risk management and potentially bigger scale commitments and greater choice, not just within programmes but potentially even between providers.

    It won’t be one-way traffic however. There will be similar challenges for Government – in developing skills and capabilities at the centre to procure, commission and manage networks of providers. In working with other Government departments, agencies, devolved and local governments to construct models of delivery that allow us both to create and transform the quality of a national welfare market whilst at the same time sharing power, responsibility and accountability with devolved structures; and sharpening our focus on public policy outcomes, with a real and explicit commitment to be in it for the long term – clarifying the role of politicians and Government about how and where we intervene and providing clear political leadership against which these objectives can be assessed.

    If we can rise to this challenge and deliver a model that meets the five tests I have set out, then I believe we can take a major step towards a modern, active and devolved welfare state that tackles poverty at community level and enables individuals to overcome the multiple barriers they face in getting back to work and progressing through the labour market.

    We know what a difference such locally-tailored solutions can make. Last week I visited the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York – an inspirational initiative that offers a comprehensive network of social service, education and community-building programmes to transform opportunities for children and families in some of New York’s most deprived neighbourhoods. Locally based and independently-run – it gives people the belief they have the power to improve their services from the ground up. And you can see the difference in the educational achievements of those young people going through its programmes.

    This is the best way to build and maintain sustainable solutions to reducing poverty and social exclusion. That should be our priority now and into the future. A shared agenda, common objectives, dialogue and debate; and a willingness to listen and learn can help us realise it.

    And there is one simple, stark fact that unites New York with every city in the UK and around the world. Intelligence is equally distributed between people wherever they are born – but the opportunity to succeed is not. That is what we must put right with these reforms to our welfare system in the UK.

    Thank you.

  • John Hutton – 2006 Speech to Future Services Network

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Future Services Network on 22nd June 2006.

    I’m grateful for the opportunity to join you this afternoon and to add my support for the work the Future Services Network is doing in bringing together public, private and voluntary sectors to shape the future of public service delivery and achieve better outcomes for individuals and communities.

    If we are to deliver world class public services, then I believe we need to continue to build on the steps we have already taken to combine increased investment with a new model of delivery – one that rejects the old world of top down monolithic public services run from the centre in favour of greater devolution, diversity and choice. One that puts the customer first, shifting the focus onto meeting the individual needs of those who use our services; and prioritising the quality and not just the quantity of public service provision.

    It means embracing new partnerships and working with new providers – whether in the public, private or voluntary sectors. It means ensuring the right incentives are in place so that improvements in quality are self sustaining. And it means getting away from the outdated belief that Whitehall always knows best. Because it doesn’t.

    So we should remain focused on improving the quality of publicly funded services and be prepared to change things that aren’t working. I don’t, however, believe the problem we face is one of values. The values of public service are the right ones. Universality, opportunity, security and equity. They don’t need revising or changing. But they do have to be combined with a new discipline that offers the consumer the best service; and the taxpayer the best value for money in today’s rapidly changing world. One that deliberately puts the power of choice and therefore control into the hands of the people who use these public services – because when it comes to public service reform, we should always trust the people.

    It is this combination of the right values and a new customer focused approach to service delivery that will lay the foundations for the success of publicly funded services in the future – from health and education to welfare.

    But achieving this requires Government to change its approach as well. Central Government will always want to prioritise national goals and objectives. But our challenge is to match this with our desire to continue to expand operational flexibility for the newly created and empowered foundation hospitals or trust schools, or welfare to work providers – so that they themselves can make a real difference to individuals, families and communities.

    And we know what a difference locally-tailored solutions can make. Last week

    I visited the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York – an inspirational initiative that offers a comprehensive network of social service, education and community-building programmes to transform opportunities for children and families in some of New York’s most deprived neighbourhoods. Locally based and independently-run – it gives people the belief they have the power to improve their services from the ground up. And you can see the difference in the educational achievements of those young people going through its programmes.

    Here in the UK, in Glasgow and Manchester, for example, we’re seeing real progress in getting local agencies, both public, voluntary and in the private sector, working together to reduce worklessness with excellent results. We need to see more of this across the UK as a whole.

    And that’s why the national roll-out of Pathways to Work and the creation of the Cities Strategy are such crucial elements of our welfare reforms – opening up new opportunities for delivering employment services to some of our most disadvantaged communities.

    Our principle objective in welfare reform today must be to design and deliver the most effective and efficient re-employment services anywhere in the world. With providers being properly incentivised to deliver the best possible services to the customer, and job seekers actively engaged in finding work or improving their employability.

    We are seeing important progress – with more people in work than ever before and last week’s OECD report finding that, now, for the first time in 50 years, we not only have the highest employment rate of the G7 countries but also the lowest combination of unemployment and inactivity rates.

    But we have much further to go. The challenge we face today is how to build a modern welfare state that allows people to exercise their fundamental right to work – at a time when our national economy is changing more rapidly than at any time since the industrial revolution.

    Our success in tackling poverty and worklessness – and our ability to preserve the values of social justice which we hold dear – hinge not on preserving the existing system of welfare delivery – but on modernising it; not on standing back and celebrating what we have already achieved with Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal – but on driving forward and building on that success; harnessing the powerful engine for change that markets can provide without sacrificing the principle of equity which markets, if not properly regulated, can so easily undermine.

    So a devolved active welfare system needs to be managed by Government within a clear framework where outcomes as well as values are prioritised. It needs to step beyond old antiquated caricatures and recognise that the world is not neatly divided into two halves – a public sector built on values and ethics and a private sector, somehow devoid of these attributes, but efficient and responsive.

    And we need to move away from a 19th Century view of the voluntary and not-for-profit sector as providers of last resort to a 21st century view where they rightly take their place alongside the public and private sectors as providers of first resort, across the whole range of publicly funded services.

    We’re already seeing the voluntary and community sector playing a crucial role in welfare delivery and the recent New Deal competition – which overall broadly maintained the numbers of different providers involved in New Deal delivery – saw the proportion of New Deal providers from the third sector increase from about one fifth to around one third.

    But we need to go further and deliver a truly dynamic and effective market where good providers are valued and properly rewarded, whether they come from the public, private or the voluntary not for profit sectors. I believe there are five key tests we need to meet to achieve this.

    First – we need to get the right incentives – to attract the best providers, from all sectors, and incentivise them to deliver outcomes that reflect our social objectives – with the support to innovate and an incentive structure that rewards providers for helping more difficult cases and which reflects our ambition not simply to help people move into work but to help them stay there.

    Second – we need to give providers the flexibility they need to forge new cross-sector partnerships; breaking down the barriers of short-term stop-go contracts that too often stifle innovation and prevent new potential providers from entering the market; and synchronising tendering timetables to allow greater flexibility over the bidding process – including, for example, enabling providers to bid for larger contracts with clusters of districts.

    Third – we need clearly defined, robust mechanisms for monitoring performance, which enable us to regulate quality with clear sanctions and rewards, while recognising the power of the consumer and avoiding the temptation to micro-manage from the centre and inadvertently obstruct local innovation.

    Fourth – providers need clear information over what’s expected of them and when. And they need confidence in the transparency of the procurement decision making process with a much stronger sense of co-ordination across Government and its agencies contracting with this market.

    And the fifth and final test is around the delivery of personalised outcomes – and the extent to which we can embed a new degree of personalisation into welfare delivery – with ever greater tailoring to the specific needs of individuals and an ever greater range of tools with which to help people.

    I want to achieve more consistent, standardised and ultimately simplified procurement processes in the DWP; better forward planning and communication of changing Jobcentre Plus requirements; and more effective use of management information to help improve provider performance – including exploring a version of the provider “Star Rating” system such as that currently used in Australia, where high-performing providers are clearly identified and benefit from a simpler contracting process. I know the demands we make of our providers are more diverse than those in Australia – so we can’t simply transfer a system from country to another. But the key point is that we have to find an appropriate way to take unnecessary bureaucracy out of the contracting system, while maintaining a level playing field that is open to new players.

    We’re also keen to ensure that output-focussed payment systems are designed in such a way as to ensure that smaller organisations also have a chance to compete. We want our competitive tendering processes to deliver the best possible local delivery systems – so we need to get the balance right between providing the flexibility that allows large-scale providers to enter the market and to pitch for large contracts with clusters of districts – with the need to ensure that smaller providers with specialised programmes or local expertise can also compete on a level playing field.

    This is particularly important if we are to ensure that voluntary and community based providers in the third sector are fully able to play their part in this new partnership to tackle worklessness and poverty in some of our most deprived areas.

    Voluntary and not-for-profit providers are not looking for special favours – they just want the ability to compete fairly and not to make a loss. If we fail to ensure a level playing field, we deny ourselves the commitment and contribution of some of the best and most innovative providers who I believe have a crucial role to play in enabling us to meet our social justice goals.

    That’s why, over the summer, as part of a wider examination of the welfare to work market, I have asked my Department to carry out a specific review to ensure the competitive neutrality of the welfare to work market – so that as we take forward the modernisation of welfare delivery – we do so with a level playing field.

    It shouldn’t matter whether a provider comes from the public, private or voluntary sector. That isn’t the issue anymore. What matters is the service they provide, the values they communicate and reflect, and the difference they can make to the lives of their customers.

    The times we live in will require from us a very different approach to welfare from the one pioneered by Atlee and Beveridge in the post-war period. But it’s underpinned by the same values and the same ambitions. To provide opportunity as well as security; to promote full employment and the right to work. To enhance personal responsibility – not undermine it. And by creating a mixed economy of welfare provision and bringing together the public, private and voluntary sector in a new mission to transform some of Britain’s most disadvantaged communities, we are setting out a modern vision of welfare of which William Beveridge and generations of progressive politicians that have gone before us, would, I hope, have been fully able to support.