Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 129)
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2006
MR PATRICK
GRATTAN, MR
ANDREW HARROP
AND MR
RICHARD EXELL
Q120 John Penrose: If someone is
51 statistically they are more likely to move on for other reasons
than because they reach retirement age.
Mr Harrop: What Richard is describing
is the perception of employers; I do not think it is borne out
by the reality. Turnover rates are highest among people in their
20s even though they receive the most training. As I say, having
fixed retirement ages does create this countdown culture. On the
issue of what further education is available, Patrick has already
commented on the difficulties of full level 2. If we focused on
giving everyone who does not have formal qualifications an entitlement
to a level-2 skills-set, plugging qualification gaps with specific,
tailored opportunities that fit their needs, that would be much
more suitable for many older workers. The idea of giving an entitlement
to the people with fewer skills is right. The other big problem
is the failure of the skills sector to age-proof what it does.
Even though most of the schemes on offer are available to people
of all ages there is a culture that skills is about young adults,
and that culture needs to be shaken up. I think the way to do
that is by having robust monitoring and targets of the age profile
of training participants.
Mr Grattan: I would urge you to
push your colleagues in the Education and Skills Committee and
the DfES that we must put in place clear evidence of how, as it
were, demographically friendly these various programmes are. Train
to Gain is coming (I know we are straying off your area) but
the Government, on the whole, does not report anything over 19+.
We have to sweat around trying to get these figures into the public
domain. Nobody knows that of the basic skills target of one million
(which is an adult target) half of those people are under 19.
So if you can push on that one, of being clear in this. The only
area of adult learning which is, as it were, demographically progressive
is the union learning programme, partly because it is indeed promoted
by people who have come to learning in adult life. So I think
it would be very positive if you could push that as an essential
element, distinguishing between statistics about how much money
is spent, how many people participate and how many qualifications
are gained—because they tell you completely different stories.
Q121 Mrs Humble: I would like to
explore further the issues to do with job sustainability and retention.
Can I start off by picking up on the answers to Anne Begg's questions,
because in your replies you show just how disparate this over-50
group is and how difficult it is then to have a single strategy
for dealing with them. Anne queried those people who are lacking
skills to get back into the labour market, but, Richard, in your
reply you highlighted that there are actually people at the other
end as well; there are individuals who were in high earning, senior
positions who then find it difficult to obtain employment, and
difficult for a variety of reasons because traditionally for these
men—and they are usually men—their status is their
job, and when they apply to another company the company sees somebody
applying with a status that was, perhaps, more than theirs and
they do not want to take that person on. So, in turn, you get
people who are, if they do manage to find employment, underemployed.
Mr Exell: Anecdotes suggest that
very often interviews are carried out by the people who are going
to be supervising the person they are recruiting and lots of people
do not like the idea of supervising someone older than themselves;
it goes against ingrained attitudes about who is in charge in
a relationship. There is a lot of educational work, so we have
got to expect some attitudes to change, really, quite slowly.
This is the sort of thing that years-and-years of seeing successful
older people continuing their careers is going to be needed to
change some of those attitudes.
Q122 Mrs Humble: I will ask for a
comment in a moment, Andrew, but part of it links back to Patrick's
comments, which were reflected in the report that Alan Pickering
produced four or five years ago, where he was saying we would
have to change our attitude towards work and that careers may
well peak at 40-early-50s and then, instead of people staying
in a job that either they do not really want to do any more, or
because of the nature of the job, they would be better off moving
out, partly because of the point that Anne made with regard to
pensions and a lot of these people being in final salary schemes,
but also because of the status issues. There are difficulties
for people to downsize, in a way; to go to a job that is less
stressful and has less responsibility. How can we manage that
process? Training is clearly a part of it, the retraining that
has already been mentioned, but how can we have that much more
flexible job market with people choosing a different career towards
the end of their working life, or two or three different careers?
Mr Harrop: The first problem is
that, by and large, large organisations do not do flexible retirement
well, giving the people the opportunity within the organisation
to step down or step sideways to a different role that will be
better suited to them, and that is because of the attitudes of
both the employer and individuals. The Government has been talking
about flexible retirement for a long time but there has not been
much improvement. When people retire flexibly that usually means
leaving their organisation. When it comes to moving on to a new
job I think the DWP has tended to assume that the problem is driven
by older people pricing themselves out of the job market that
they are looking in by expecting wages that are higher than it
is realistic for them to be looking for. The qualitative research
I have been talking about that we have just done shows that actually
people are prepared to `trade down' certainly in the groups we
were talking to, as long as there is a good, flexibility opportunity.
The pay is less important than having a job that is satisfying
and that fits with the rest of their life. What the people in
those groups talked about, though, was a new form of discrimination
called "over-qualified-ism" As Richard says, in the
recruitment process, those people were banging their heads against
the wall because people were making assumptions based on their
previous jobs as to what they wanted to do in the job they were
applying for.
Mr Grattan: I pin my hope on two
things: one is small business, which of course does not have human
resource managers, grades, sizes of desks and carpets, and the
other thing is women, who seem to be more sensible about this.
That is not for quotation! As the higher employment rate of women
comes through to this age group, hopefully we will see a change.
It seems to be a particular masculine phenomenon. You may take
me for a gross generalisation.
Justine Greening: That is sexist!
Q123 Mrs Humble: I am more than happy
to accept the compliment on behalf of women in general, and certainly
me in particular! Is this very complex scenario a reason behind
the failure of the job retention and rehabilitation pilot, because
it did not seem to do very much. Why not?
Mr Exell: Part of it may have
been the fact that it was a voluntary programme, so the fact that
it was voluntary meant that it was largely people who were so
committed to employment that there is a strong chance they were
going to be going into employment in any case. So the people who
ended up going on to the programme who would not have been going
into the job stream otherwise would be those with extra problems,
which is why you have got this peculiar phenomenon of the fact
that people who went on the programme seem to have done a little
bit worse, though not in a statistically significant way, than
people who did not go on it. Part of the future work on this will
need to be looking at the way in which non-voluntary programmes
are used. Also, what we cannot do is just give up and say: "That
did not work, we cannot go ahead"; we have got to look into
trying different ways of helping people to move on and stay in
employment. It is a target we cannot give up on.
Q124 Mrs Humble: We are running out
of time. Can I ask two questions wrapped up into one for everybody
to answer? One: are there the sustainable jobs out there for the
over-50s, and, two, should Jobcentre Plus be providing in-work
support to make those jobs sustainable for older workers?
Mr Exell: Yes, we very strongly
believe that Jobcentre Plus should be in there offering in-work
help. We think that for all groups the problems that lead to people
leaving work tend to be the same as the problems that stop them
getting into work. As those problems have not gone away (things
like qualification levels, health problems, and so on) they are
going to need continuing help with dealing with that once they
have got their jobs.
Mr Harrop: I think where over-50s
are different is that it is not just about people who have recently
left benefits, when we are talking about job sustainability. People,
particularly with emerging health problems, may have been in a
job for many years and then face difficulties. So it is not just
about Jobcentre Plus's role, it is mainstream initiatives about
occupational health, and about skills. So Train to Gain
and Workplace Health Connect are going to be very important
as well.
Mr Grattan: There are sustainable
jobs, and indeed older people will be needed to meet those skills.
If I can just answer the question in a slightly broader way, I
think the question for the Committee, as it were, on the age dimension
of your inquiry is really: what do we say about this as compared
to issues like lone parents? It is quite different from lone parents.
There are virtually no employment programmes specifically for
this group; unlike in IB and ethnic minorities, and so on. It
goes right across. It is interesting, I would just point out,
that the DWP evidence to you has a whole section 2 on extending
employment opportunities to everyone; it does not mention older
workers in that section at all. Because we are doing quite well,
thank you very much, in the employment stats do you need to worry
about this? I would say we are not going to have special programmes
based on age but what we have got to do is not let this become
a marginal issue and we have got to put right up front: are all
these various programmes working for all age groups. Is Pathways
to Work working for all age groups? Is employer training working
for all age groups? I think that would be the strongest recommendation
I would urge on you, because we have a real problem getting the
Government machine to look at things like that. Is the City Strategy,
when it comes in, working for all age groups? I would hope, if
I can put in a plea, that you really push; the Government—Ministers
and others—have got to demonstrate that these programmes
on skills and on work really are working equally well for all
age groups, because at the moment the messages are fudged or hidden.
Q125 John Penrose: Can I pick up
on that last comment by Patrick Grattan? I was going to ask you
questions about current programmes, and you say they are comparatively
slim and few and far between. Actually, what you have just been
saying is rather more interesting about what ought to be in place.
Are you saying that the existing programmes across all age groups
are in theory adequate and that we just need to make sure that
they are being properly applied across all age groups, or are
you saying that there are some things which are peculiar to the
over-50 age group which might necessitate particular kinds of
support and help in order to get people closer to the job market?
I will ask Patrick to start.
Mr Grattan: I would very briefly
say we would not argue that you have got to have special programmes
for special age groups, but when you look at the data you will
find that we are not making enough effort to offset disadvantage
in certain age groups. So the implication of looking at the analysis
of: "Is this or that programme working for all age groups"
is that we will probably have to do more.
Mr Harrop: The big problem is
that the DWP has been unable to personalise programmes to individual
circumstances and needs, be that about age, health or anything
else, mainly because of resource difficulties, which means that
they have to treat client groups as a "lump" and assume
that they have similar characteristics. While that remains the
case I think there is some need for treating over-50s differently
because they risk becoming detached from the world of work faster
and accepting early retirement, which is why we have always supported
New Deal 50 Plus being available at six months, or ideally
earlier, while other programmes for people over 25 have come in
later. If we can move to a world where New Deal programmes and
the equivalent were available as soon as was needed by that individual
on a personalised basis, depending on their barriers from the
labour market, that would be ideal.
Q126 John Penrose: Can I pick up
on that point? You are saying New Deal 50 Plus is working
well, could be improved—what sort of improvements would
you expect to see?
Mr Harrop: New Deal 50 Plus
was initially effective and has, basically, stopped working because,
firstly, the employment credit that came with it was wrapped into
Working Tax Credit. No one is aware of that credit and the take-up
of Working Tax Credit for non-parents is extremely low. Secondly,
because the Jobcentre Plus teams have taken their eye off the
ball in terms of prioritising this group and encouraging them
to enrol. The success of New Deal 50 Plus is still
reasonably okay for people who enrol but the take-up of the programme
has really fallen in recent years, which is why we hope the DWP
will find the resources to pilot compulsory participation in the
programme which they suggested in the Green Paper earlier in the
year, but there has been no news on that since. I think that is
because of money problems.
Q127 John Penrose: So you would suggest
compulsory participation, and what other changes to it in order
to make it New Deal 50 Plus—Plus?
Mr Exell: We would fairly much
go along with the Age Concern view about the importance of early
intervention. We say that there are three principles which are
important for employment programmes for all groups: one is early
assessment of people's needs; another is continuing help after
they get jobs and a third one is emphasising getting them into
jobs that meet their own ambitions rather than any old job. What
we do say is that when you come to older workers there is a fourth
principle needed as well that does not apply so urgently to the
other groups, which is early intervention. All the evidence we
have got is that economic status reinforces itself for this age
group. Older workers get stuck in a rut of non-employment far
more quickly than younger groups. Therefore, the importance of
early intervention is really quite significant.
Mr Grattan: I would add one other
thing: a more flexible attitude to voluntary activity, because
any form of activity is better than no activity.
Q128 John Penrose: Just a point about
older workers getting stuck into the rut of non-activity, as you
just put it, Richard, is it easier or is it harder to get them
out of that rut compared to other age groups, or is it roughly
the same?
Mr Exell: It does seem to be quite
difficult. That does seem to be one of the lessons of the job
retention and rehabilitation programme. This is a difficult group
to help, which is one reason why I was saying that the Government
has adopted quite a challenging target.
Mr Harrop: There is a balance
there. It is very important not to give up. One of our real concerns
at Pathways to Work has been the prioritisation of the new claimants
when over three-quarters of over-50s on Incapacity Benefit have
been claiming for more than three years. Although it is a challenging
age group, not enough has been done to try, particularly working
through outreach or voluntary or private providers who do not
have the stigma problems of Jobcentre Plus, and we are worried
that by de-prioritising than compared to new claimants this is
not going to be given a chance.
Q129 John Penrose: Which brings us
rather neatly back to Patrick Grattan's opening remark about waiting
for people to retire or die.
Mr Grattan: Just one other point;
you may remember the thing called BOND (Building On New
Deal), but we are not really sure where it is. We accepted
that we were moving away from a world where New Deal is defined
by age, and that New Deal 50 Plus was gradually dying,
on the basis that the whole thing would be rejuvenated for all
ages. That has not happened because of resource constraints or
for whatever other reasons.
Mr Exell: Unfortunately BOND has
died but it has not been buried because no one wants to admit
it is dead.
John Penrose: Thank you.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
for some insightful comments. I am glad to see that somebody is
representing my age group. I shall be in touch! It has been an
extremely useful session and we are very grateful. Thank you very
much.
| 
