PRIME Initiative

I was asked to be an “expert” on a BBC Radio Scotland call-in programme on pensions and retirement. I was there to talk about finding an income by starting your own business. I suspect there was a feeling that starting your own business was a way of the retired developing a satisfying life style, but the very articulate callers made it clear that poor pensions, despite a lifetime of payments, was a major gripe.

My fellow expert, Dan Hyde, the pensions reporter on www.thisismoney.co.uk, found himself, against his better judgement, defending the pensions industry. My other co-expert, Frances Fay (www.francesfay.co.uk), author of the Good Retirement Guide found herself under attack with the familiar line “It’s alright for you”. I was luckier thanks to a jaunty octogenarian who had created his own business driving trucks around and was clearly loving it.

But just when you leave the bus-stop three buses going to your destination pass you by. Immediately after the programme three pieces of research on pensions self-presented on my computer screen.
The first was reported in the Mature Times. Retirement specialist Partnership reported that 77 per cent of all the annuities they dealt with were for pension pots of around £30,000. This would buy £40 per week to top up the state pension of £97.65 (assuming you were entitled to it all – many women now in the 50s are not). This is roughly a quarter of the UK average male and female wage of £500 per week. No wonder the callers to BBC Radio Scotland complained!

But then came Ernst & Young’s report for the 2020 Public Service Trust at the RSA entitled “The Deficit: A longer Term View” http://www.2020publicservicestrust.org/publications/
Basically they were saying that an ageing population along with the cost of climate change and three other public expenditure drivers would ensure that the UK had an unsustainable budget deficit. If I understood the argument, the cost of state pensions and welfare for an ageing population, alongside the other public expenditure drivers, would mean that the UK had to borrow more and more from the money markets because we would not be able to meet the budget deficit from higher taxes or public expenditure cuts. The message is that unless we start to make difficult choices, “we’re doomed”.

Then up pops a message from the International Longevity Centre with a research review on the future of retirement (http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/). The review reported on a survey of 280 people aged 50 – 69, finding that of those above SPA (state pension age) and still working, one in three was self-employed. However only 56 per cent of the self-employed had a pension compared to 72 per cent of those who had been or were employees. What is clear is that the self-employed retire much later. This accords with PRIME’s own anecdotal evidence.
What do we make of all this? Well in my view the chances of improved pensions over the next decade or so are just about zilch. If anything there will be continued pressure to keep the state pension as low as possible. Just raising the retirement age is not going to help – already almost one person in three between the ages of 50 and SPA is workless. Pretending people are able to work longer is a self-delusion.

As a nation we need to change our view of older people and their contribution to the labour market. If we want to help older people to continue to be active in the labour market, increase individual and national wealth and reduce the cost of an ageing population, we just have to invest in self-employment support for older people.

This is the question that is raised in an economic analysis of the ageing of society in the UK and in a far ranging discussion paper. Both are published by BIS (Department for Business Innovation and Skills) on its mini-website www.bis.gov.uk/ageingpopulation.

You can find the relevant discussion paper here (as a PDF download) and the analysis can be found here.

PRIME would like to highlight three things:

(i) The Discussion Paper invites your input by the 30th June 2010. This is your opportunity to say what you think is important.

(ii) For the first time a paper published by the government states that almost one person in three between the ages of fifty and state pension age is currently out of work. This needs to be emblazoned from the tree-tops to counter some of the knee-jerk media response to unemployment statistics.

(iii) Self-employment for the over 50s is featured as an important labour market response. Olderpreneurship is not seen as a rather quirky side issue, but an important part of the future economy.

(iv) Wow. Someone has been listening.

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee has been looking at contracted employment programmes - the sort of thing people are sent on by Jobcentre Plus after they have been out of work for a while.

Jobcentre itself does not actually run these programmes, but instead contracts them out to mainly private providers. The bulk of the work is carried out by a mixture of private companies and some “third sector” non-profits. PRIME itself has sometimes been a provider in such schemes, so we know what they are like.

Most of the organisations involved, whether private or charitable, are actually looking to make a profit or surplus on providing such services. Payment to the providers is usually by results in some way. They receive a portion of the money up-front when they start training or helping a person, but the majority later - when the trainee achieves some target outcome, like ceasing to claim benefit or staying in a job for three months.

This all sounds pretty efficient, but there are some potential problems with this model. The Committee has drawn attention to them in its report - and found some evidence that bad things are happening.

Basically providers have a financial incentive to concentrate their efforts on the candidates most likely to succeed - in the words of the report to “cream off” the people most likely to help them attain their targets. Meanwhile those the provider thinks are not likely to end up giving them good or profitable outcomes are at risk of being simply “parked” - i.e. minimal effort is expended on them.

This is indeed a real risk, and it is likely that future back-to-work schemes, whichever flavour of government is in power, are likely now to follow some payment by results model. The Committee is to be congratulated on drawing attention to the problems that can result. The solution, if there is one, is to police the contracts more effectively, and perhaps to broaden the range of rewarded outcomes, so that all who go on these programmes get a fair crack of the whip.

Extract from report below.
Full report at the Parliament web site - HTML version (browsable) or PDF version.

Creaming and Parking

100. Providers are increasingly being paid by results, on the basis of the number of customers moving into work, rather than a flat fee. There are two particular risks associated with this approach. The first is that of ‘creaming’, where contractors who are paid by results are likely to concentrate their efforts on those participants who are closest to the labour market and more easily placed in a job. The second is that of “parking” where participants who are deemed furthest from the labour market will receive a bare minimum of services and are unlikely to make any progress whilst participating in a programme. In this way providers seek to maximise their profit, focusing on customers who will earn them outcome payments, while spending as little as possible on customers who will not.

101. There is evidence that creaming and parking is taking place in the Pathways to Work programme. Research by the Department found that provider staff felt that the focus on performance targets influenced their behaviour with clients, to the extent that they spent less time than required with people with multiple barriers to work (and perceived as harder to help). They also felt that they needed to encourage job ready clients to take jobs that would enable a swift return to work, rather than take lengthier routes towards jobs that they wanted.

102. In addition, most providers who took part in the research perceived that clients were, on the whole, harder to help than they had anticipated and some staff expressed concerns that this had also led to job outcome targets being prioritised ahead of clients’ well being and ability to sustain employment.

from p28, section 4, Vulnerable Groups in The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee - Fourth Report Management and Administration of Contracted Employment Programmes

The manifest season is upon us. And the last few weeks seems to have been alive with enterprise manifestos. None of them from a political party - but all of them about enterprise.

Here are some examples.

The Genesis Senate - Britain’s Economic Revival through micro, small and and medium-sized businesses

SFEDI (The Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative) - Making self employment and micro enterprise a viable income opportunity for all

NFEA (National Federation of Enterprise Agencies) - Enterprise, the Economy and Society

And there are more.

What they all have in common is a view that enterprise will be critical to coming out of the recession, and start-up support, advice and mentoring should be available to a far wider range of people than is currently the case. They all want to see enterprise as an equal and integral part of Welfare to Work and better advertising of enterprise opportunities in Jobcentre Plus. And they all want to see finance to start a business available to a wider range of people.

Well, PRIME has been pre-empting the enterprise manifestos.

We now have a PRIME 50+ self-employment flyer in every Jobcentre Plus in England and Scotland, and now over one third of our enquiries are from people reading about PRIME and self-employment in Jobcentre Plus.

We have a sub-contract or agreement with a major contractor in every Flexible New Deal area in England and Scotland under the first phase and we have been working hard to ensure we are in every area in the second phase. We are currently awaiting the announcement on the second phase major contractors. This means for the over 50s, self-employment and enterprise will be a key option in Welfare the Work.

We recently launched our mentoring scheme for people just starting out on their enterprise journey in Bristol, Newcastle and Belfast. We have worked closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to train volunteer mentors and they are available now. We will be adding new areas as we roll out the scheme across the country.

And yes, we have the PRIME-Zopa olderpreneur loan scheme.

All the parties are busy telling us how they will get people back into employment and off the dole queue. They have to realise that creating the jobs comes first, and that means putting enterprise first. Without a growth in new businesses, and therefore in new jobs, the best laid welfare to work plans are doomed to failure. So the issues raised in the enterprise manifestos need to be given pride of place in each political party manifesto.

I wonder if they will.

Click to download PRIME briefing paper as PDF 295K

ABSTRACT This paper summarises the ways in which the recession has impacted on the older (50+) workforce, comparing ONS data for different age cohorts since August 2008 – the point where the UK was entering recession and marked differences in the impact on these age cohorts started to appear. The data is drawn from ONS Labour Market Statistical Bulletins from October 2008 to February 2010, which provides figures from August 2008 to January 2010.

A lavish government mentoring scheme has kicked off today with expensive ads in many newspapers. For a change it’s not just spin - over 150 major companies are backing the plan to get unemployed people into work with the support of their own mentor. There is only one problem - you have to be aged under 25 to benefit.

The scheme is the latest stage of Backing Young Britain, an even larger campaign launched back in July. Initially the emphasis was on apprenticeships, work experience and internships.

The mentoring offer has only just kicked off. The main money is coming from the Department for Work and Pensions. Companies contribute volunteer mentors, who get trained for free at taxpayers’ expense.

So it’s a well-thought-out scheme. Shame there’s nothing similar for older people.

Meanwhile here at PRIME we are starting our own more modest mentoring scheme for older people thinking about going into self-employment. These programmes do cost something to run even with volunteers as you need to vet and train the mentors, and then publicise what you are doing so the right people get to hear about it.

Fortunately as a charity we’re not completely without supporters. As yet we haven’t quite managed to get 150 organisations on board to back the mentoring project, but we have got two. Bank of America Charitable Foundation is providing the money and HMRC are first in with a team of volunteers.

Bristol is the first city to go live. We’ll be adding two more later this month.

If you want more details about getting mentoring support for yourself then contact PRIME’s Mentoring Manager Harri Harrison at harri.harrison@ace.org.uk . He’s also your man if you are an organisation that has some volunteer mentors to offer.

Get yourself a PRIME mentor in Bristol

Plans to deal with pension shortfalls by encouraging people to work for longer received a dash of cold water today. Three-quarters of us could be too ill to work, Professor Sir Michael Marmot of University College London warns in a new report.

All but the richest Britons suffer years of ill health. People in the richest neighbourhoods in England live seven years longer than in the poorest, and enjoy an extra 17 years of good health.

Even if you exclude the poorest five per cent and the richest five per cent the gap in life expectancy between those in low and high income places is still six years, and in disability-free life expectancy 13 years.

Much more needs to be done to address health inequalities if raising the retirement age to 68 is really to mean people remaining active and working for longer, the report warns.

The report is not the work of some maverick outfit, but the final paper from the Marmot Commission - set up in 2008 at the request of the Secretary of State for Health. The Commission, chaired by Sir Michael Marmot, was tasked with finding the most effective strategies to reducing health inequalities in the country.

Fair Society, Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review)

Coverage at Times Online

In all the events and reports on worklessness that have come out over the last couple of weeks youth unemployment is always the central theme. But the evidence on youth unemployment is a bit like jelly - bright and brash on the surface, but 95 per cent water. You can’t use it to support anything. Only Polly Toynbee writing in the Guardian seems to have noticed that there was considerably more youth unemployment in the 80s than there is now.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we should take all the public and private money that is spent on youth schemes away. The two groups that suffer the most when unemployment rises are the young trying to get a start on the employment ladder and older workers trying to stay on it – or get back on. Both groups require help - it’s not an either or thing.

The belief that all our problems will be solved if we throw everything into helping youth is irrational. It doesn’t even help youth long term. If older workers can’t get a job who will be paying to support them in their impoverished retirement? Today’s youth, one way or another.

In fact the interests of young and old are closer than you might think in other ways too. For example, schemes to help them often have the same flaws. So understanding what actually works when it comes to practically assisting one group can often lead to better initiatives to help the other.

Take the Future Jobs Fund. It is a Department for Work and Pensions initiative designed to create 170,000 additional jobs, mainly for 18-24 year olds who have been out of work for nearly a year. It does seem to be providing some new opportunities, particularly in work experience and training places. But it’s too early to say how many of real long-term jobs will remain when the money runs out in March 2011.

Here’s the problem. The Future Jobs Fund depends on there being employers ready to take government money to create sustainable jobs for youth. But will there be enough employers wanting to hire in the midst of a recession? Even with the incentive currently being offered of up to £6,500 for each unemployed young ­person taken on?

We really need to increase the number of expanding employers. One way to do that would be to put more effort into enterprise support for people creating new businesses. For example the over 50s – people who have seen recessions before. People with the experience, skills and knowledge to build businesses with a good survival rate, even in tough times.

So let’s put aside the false distinctions and the factional fighting. It’s often older people who can help younger people. And the other way round too.

Having said that, I’d not say no to a Future Enterprise Fund for the over 50s, should some wise government set one up. The point is the jobs the new enterprises create would help not just their older owners, but all of society.

Influential voices are calling for the current “default retirement age” of 65 to be scrapped. The latest call comes from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which has said that workers should be able to stay in their jobs beyond the age of 65. The EHRC polled 1,500 workers, and found that a relaxation of the current rule would be welcomed by most. The House of Lords is likely to debate the issue today, as part of the debate on the Equality Bill, which is currently threading its way through parliament.

Currently employers have the legal right to force employees to retire at 65 - irrespective of whether or not the employee in question is still able to do the job. This was confirmed in a legal ruling in September of last year - but there were strings attached.

The High Court ruled that the default retirement age was not unlawful - but that there was now a compelling case for it to be scrapped. In practice this means that employers can still lawfully retire people against their will at the age of 65, for the time being. But the court wanted an urgent review of this provision.

The current Equality Bill does provide an opportunity to decide whether the default retirement age stays in place. The government has said it intends to get the bill passed before the general election this year. So there’s a chance here for the political parties to do more than make promises, but to actually vote on the issue.

Many organisations have already scrapped automatic retirement based on age, without waiting for a change in the law making them. They include Tesco, Marks & Spencer, HBOS, the Co-op Group and the Civil Service (for all but senior civil servants). An umbrella group called The Employers Forum on Age has been campaigning against forced retirement at 65 for several years.

However, Personnel Today magazine, which itself backs the campaign to scrap forced retirement, reports that some employers are still against changing the law, particularly now, in the middle of a recession. This is because it provides a useful mechanism for them to reduce staff numbers legally. Personnel Today quotes one HR director, who is against changing the lw, as saying “It’s useful to us now”.

Long term though forced retirement at 65 is likely to go. But this in itself won’t be enough to keep more people in work and earning. The jobs need to be there in the first place, for anyone of any age to do.

External links
Equality and Human Rights Commission summary of proposals

EHRC report (PDF) Working Better: The over 50s, the new work generation

Personnel Today on attitudes of HR chiefs pro and con

The Guardian Harman wants end to compulsory retirement age

Note:
The default retirement age and the state pension age are currently out of step. The default retirement age was set at 65 for both men and women in legislation that came into effect four years ago. Meanwhile women continue to be receive their state pension earlier than men, currently at age 60 while men have to wait till 65. But the plan is to harmonise the age for both sexes, increasing it in stages to 68 over time.

When will you get a state pension? Official State Pension Age calculator

NESTA Age Unlimited Scotland

NESTA, a public body established by Parliament to encouraged innovation and funded with Lottery money, has launched a new programme in Scotland called Age Unlimited.

Here’s what it says:

We are looking for people in their 50’s and 60’s in Scotland to come forward with new ideas that could be turned into live community projects which would improve the lives of older people (people in their 70’s, 80’s and above). The programme aims to test how older people can be engaged in the design and delivery of innovative new services that could improve older people’s health and well-being and reduce dependency on costly mainstream public services.

Maybe you have experience as a carer or volunteer with older people and have skills and experience you’d be willing to share. Maybe you are looking for a new challenge? If so, we want to hear from you. In return we’ve got support and funding to make your idea become real.

More information and the application form for the Age Unlimited programme can be found online: www.nesta.org.uk/age-unlimited-scotland. If you have any queries or would prefer to complete a paper application, please call 01382 229521 or email ageunlimitedinscotland@nesta.org.uk and we will post you a form. Our application closes on 1st March 2010.

Read the recent press coverage in The Herald here: Sheena was a punk rocker…

Here we go again. George Osborne has announced plans at the Conservative Party conference to make us all keep working longer before we can draw our State Pensions. While this might a seem logical way to save public money it misses the same key point as most similar proposals to raise pension age. It assumes there are going to be jobs there for these older workers to do. In reality it is probable that almost half will be out of work.

So for many people it will simply mean moving from drawing their pension to drawing an out-of-work benefit. Where’s the saving in that?

Let’s be clear. I have no problem with the idea of working for a bit longer. In fact there’s a lot of positive things to be said for it. It would probably lead to a generally better standard of health, and many people would a welcome a chance to stay ‘connected’ and contribute to society for longer. And of course, there’s the financial benefits.

But the tricky bit is finding the jobs. So, at the moment, George Osborne has only half a policy. The difficult bit is missing.

The fundamental point that George Osborne seems to have missed is that alongside the proposed changes to State Pension Age, interventions are required to help older workers to stay in, or get back into, work – and these interventions come at a cost.

According to the last census, economic activity rates for workers during the five years immediately before retirement were only 58% for women, and 52% for men – and these figures are likely to have been worsened by the recession.

So what we really need from the Conservatives are some really innovative proposals that give older workers real support in finding sustainable work opportunities. Given the poor track record most companies have in hiring older workers, these proposals will have to include self-employment. This is how currently how over a third (35%) of 65 year-olds choose to work (source: ONS 2001 Census).

Full text of George Osborne’s speech

Over 300 delegates from older people’s organisations poured into the Scottish Parliament at the bottom of The Royal Mile in Edinburgh on Friday 2nd October. This was the first Older People’s Assembly in Scotland of this size, and is certainly more than England, Wales and Northern Ireland have produced. There are a range of forums, panels, committees and local assemblies across the UK, but nothing on this scale or with this potential.

A few years ago the obsession was with younger people’s parliaments. Thank goodness the reality of an ageing society has at last sunk home.

For me it was a great pleasure both to be able to speak about the work PRIME could deliver to help the Scottish Government create a wealthier and fairer Scotland, and to actually enjoy being in the ten-year-old Scottish Parliament building.

Like many first assemblies in the past, the sub-texts of this very successful meeting were about the legitimate areas of discussion, the format that any future meetings of this kind should take to be most effective, and what the extent and limits of the Assembly’s power might be.

At this stage the proceedings of the Assembly will form a report which will go to, amongst others, the Members of the Scottish Parliament. But there then has to be a deliberation about the next steps.

Younger people’s assemblies are a chance for the young to learn political skills, but older people’s assemblies may well offer a chance for older people to apply the political skills they have learnt over a lifetime. I was certainly urging the Assembly to demand a proper programme of enterprise support activities for older people in Scotland.

If society continues to be so youth obsessed, will older people take their political revenge through older people’s assemblies? It will be interesting to watch, but even better to participate.
Further reading:
Report on event from Age Concern and Help the Aged in Scotland

This week has seen a rash of media stories saying that youth unemployment is running out of control, in reaction to the official labour market statistics released in August.

But the real story contained in the Office for National Statistics latest figures was rather different.

Though both groups have a hard time in a recession, oldsters who drop off the employment ladder are having a harder time even than the youngsters taking their first steps onto it.  It is this story - about the difficulty that older have finding work, that is rarely told.

Just how could they get it all so wrong? Well, read PRIME’s Occasional Paper on the subject.

Too many commentators appear to have rushed in and grabbed the first figure they could find, so anxious were they to “expose” a huge rise in youth unemployment. They all made the elementary error of assuming that those who were economically inactive were all unemployed and completely forgot that nearly one million people aged 18 - 24 are in full-time education.

The real story in these statistics is the same one that PRIME published in 2004 when PRIME wrote “Towards a 50+ enterprise culture” based on the 2003 labour market statistics.

It’s the over 50s stupid.

Why are the media writing wrong headlines and getting the interpretation of the data so wrong? The statistics do tell a fairly clear story that we have a huge worklessness issue among the over 50s. It’s not that hard to discover what is really going on.

When the data is adjusted for full-time education amongst the 16/17 year olds and the 18 - 24 year olds, it is quite apparent that these cohorts are faring betting than others. That is not to say that everything is rosy - one person in ten aged 18 - 24 economically inactive is not good news. But compare it with worklessness in the 50 to State Pension Age cohort. One in four is economically inactive in this age group according to these data.

How about a call for programmes for the 50+ workless? How about a call for more help for 50+ self-employment and enterprise?

Some voices are now calling for such action.  The TUC has just warned that long-term unemployed people aged over 50 are at risk of never working again - unless they get proper tailored support to get back into the job market.

The TUC quotes research that shows that people aged over 50 who are unemployed are 10 times more likely to still be out of work after two years than they are to have found a new job.

For a man in this age group, says the TUC, for every additional year spent unemployed the chances of never working again increase by almost 25 per cent. Almost half of unemployed people over 50 had been out of work for more than a year.

It’s not an optimistic story. But it is the truth. We won’t get far doing much about tackling unemployment if the majority of the media get the facts wrong. It takes the pressure off the authorities to get help to the people suffering the worst.

PRIME Occasional Paper August 2009 on Older Workers And Recession

PRIME OccPapAug09 Appendix 1 Labour Market Data Unadjusted

PRIME OccPapAug09 Appendix 2 Labour Market Data Adjusted By Education

Two big changes affecting the way government deals with small business have emerged out of the current spate of resignations and today’s cabinet reshuffle.

Firstly Alan Sugar, the business star from TV’s The Apprentice has accepted a new role promoting enterprise from within government. The role is unpaid, but Sir Alan is expected to accept a peerage, which will enable him to speak on business topics from within the House of Lords.

Text of official announcement below.
Press comment: Sugar

Secondly the government department with overall responsibility for business in the UK, BERR, is disappearing in a merger with DIUS, the department in charge of higer education. The new merged department, called BIS or “Business, Innovation and Skills”, will be taking over both roles - under the control of the current Business Secretary Peter Mandelson.
Press comment: BIS

From BERR site

Sir Alan Sugar has been appointed as the Government’s Enterprise Champion.

Areas he may look at include access to finance, prompt payment, how to handle the downturn and how to start a new business. The post will be unpaid.

New Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

Last updated 05 June 2009

Over the next 20 years the UK’s population will age faster than ever before in its history. There will be 5.4 million more people of pension age - an increase of 45 per cent. At the same time, our working-age ratio is declining. This combination has serious implications for the economy, with proportionally fewer workers supporting the growing number of older retired people.

One measure being implemented by Government from next year to tackle this issue is the introduction of later retirement ages. Through gradual changes in State Pension age (SPA), three million people who would otherwise be able to claim a state pension are being nudged rather hopefully back into the workforce.

This presentation given by PRIME recently (Powerpoint format) highlights the economic impact of these changes - and projects even higher levels of worklessness and poverty among older people if practical measures are not adopted now.

Of the three million workers eventually being removed from pension entitlement by the changes, most are women - in fact in the initial batch all are. We reckon that no more than 40 per cent of the total are likely to be economically active. This means that 60 per cent of the three million will be without a pension - and without a job. And that’s without taking into consideration the impact of the recession, since it’s impossible to say how long that will last.

But it does seem the consequences of changing the pension age haven’t really been thought through. In attempting to solve the problem of financing pension provision the state may only have succeeded in creating different problems elsewhere.

On the plus side, today around one fifth of the over-50 working population are self-employed, and many continuing to work beyond the current state pension age. So there is considerable benefit to the economy to be gained through assisting higher numbers of over 50s into self-employment.

But self-employment isn’t an option for everyone, so there would also need to be other measures to support older workers to remain in or re-enter conventional employment.

Without such action raising the state pension age won’t accomplish much - indeed it may do more harm than good. It’s not enough to put a whole lot of older women and men back into the workforce by administrative fiat. They also need some practical way of making a living.

See also What are the alternatives to a personal pension? on our other site.