Closing down my website

My website, An Introduction to Social Policy, first came online in 2000.  It has been used over that time by more than eight million people, but changing approaches to the internet have led to a decline in its use.  I have made several attempts to get someone else to take it over, without success, and after 25 years I have decided to close it down.  It will not be updated further.

The current address for the website is at www.spicker.uk; my domain expires in June, and I will not renew it.  In the course of the next couple of months, I will introduce redirects so that the material continues to be  accessible.  The material from the website will be available at

https://observant-paulspicker.wordpress.com/

and in my university repository at

https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/2571056/an-introduction-to-social-policy-website

I have also made the text available as an ebook and as a paperback.  It can be found at

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Social-Policy-Paul-Spicker/dp/B0DPZ57VDJ/

The printed text is (necessarily) inferior to the web version; it loses the links, the cross references, many of the graphic images and the direct access to supplementary material.

I will continue to blog at https://observant-paulspicker.wordpress.com/ and my open access papers are available at the same address.

Paul Spicker

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

In discussions on social media, I’ve been taken aback by the strength of  criticism that has been directed towards me for using an original AI image.  I’ve been told that AI is unethical, that it’s based on ‘stolen’ IP and  that it undermines the rights of creators.  I think these comments are misconceived, but the negative comments have  prompted me to reply  somewhere where they might help to sway opinion. I’ve prepared a short submission to the Government’s consultation paper on  Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.

This is a draft; if people have reasoned objections or observations, let me know of them and I’ll consider whether I need to amend them before submission. Responses to the consultation are due by 25th February.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Consultation

The foundational assumptions

The consultation assumes that the protection of intellectual property is the equivalent to the protection of creative work.  There are three things wrong with that.  First, original work and the intellectual property which relates to it is commonly developed in fields which are not necessarily thought of as ‘creative’ activity.  This is most obviously the case in works of science, works of scholarship and works of nonfiction.  One of the recurring problems with debates about IP has been the failure to recognise that rules which apply to creative endeavour do not only apply to original creation.  Restrictions on the dissemination and re-use of materials represent a major impediment  to the production of academic work and nonfiction, presenting obstacles to scientific theory, modern history and  the exchange of ideas.

Second, the protection of ‘rights holders’ does not guarantee protection for to the creators of original content.  In many cases rights are held either by publishers, employers or by their successors in title. The publishers of academic works have a long history of  acquiring copyright without paying authors, minimising payments to content creators and charging authors to allow open access.  The primary effect of the copyright laws has been to defend, not the creators of intellectual property, but the interests of the businesses who have secured the rights.

Third, the copyright laws as currently constituted often act as an impediment to the development of original content.  It is difficult to generalise with confidence, because the laws of copyright internationally are in such a mess, but ‘fair dealing’ is still hugely restrictive; the effects include requirements for permission to quote, select, illustrate or use materials for the purposes of teaching.  Claims of intellectual property are routinely being made for historical texts and images, composed music, folk song, commonplace harmonic and melodic sequences; although such claims are without merit, they are used to bully and intimidate the creators of content into either paying or withdrawing their work.   There is a presumption against using material that might be copyrighted, rather than a presumption of legitimate use.

What AI is doing

The objections to AI are currently focused on the issue of ‘training’, a subject mentioned 52 times in the consultation without being defined.  ‘Large Language Modules’ are accused of ‘scraping’ original work in ways that infringe the IP of contents creators.  ‘Scraping’, as I understand it, consists primarily of examining a huge range of potential sources, and using information gleaned about techniques, the identification of relationships and constellations of words, images or other material between different sources, and outputs, to offer new material which is based on those relationships, but is not recognisably the product of any individual source.

Copyright laws are supposed to protect work from being reproduced, not from it being used.  LLMs differ from human analysts in the size, speed and criteria for use, but the core tasks employed in scraping depend on uses that in other contexts are unquestionably legitimate: perusal, selection and analysis. This, if we think about it dispassionately, is exactly what every creator, and most students of higher education, must learn to do.  Students, in order to present original arguments or designs, learn to select material and place it in a structure – selection and ordering are the preconditions of effective evaluation.  Everyone who has ever written an essay, a literature review or a story rooted in one of the basic plots can be said to be ‘scraping’.  That is also how the creative imagination works: not from thoughts run wild, but from a sense of how to mould learned material into new and unfamiliar juxtapositions.  AI may put things together in a different way, but the process of selection and analysis is equivalent to learning, and the nature of any infringement by AI is primarily a matter of scale.  ‘Scraping’ is a normal and legitimate use of source material.

The interests of users

The consultation scarcely considers the interests of users at all.  Artificial intelligence potentially offers end-users powers to produce content that could not otherwise have been developed.  These include the power to generate high-quality images, schedules, information – and to do it at little or no cost to the user.  There are problems in managing this, to be sure. Foremost among them will be to teach people how to do use AI well –  to choose the best methods and presentations.  The current lobby against AI is trying, not to make AI better or more responsible, but to stop it from doing what it is designed to do. This is a misconceived position that is intended to deny the benefits of AI to users.

I conclude that the reservation of rights to obstruct the development of AI should not be pursued.     

 

The decision not to compensate the WASPI women

The government has decided not to compensate women who have lost several years’ pensions because of the shift to equal pension ages.  The main complaint that has been addressed (notably, the decision of the Ombudsman on this issue) is focused on a specific question: were the women properly informed about the change in their entitlement?  The Ombudsman’s judgment was that some notices came late, or not at all, and so that there was maladministration.

That, however, is only part of the issue, and not (in my view) the greatest matter of concern.  The problem lies not so much in the 1995 Act, which set about equalising pension ages, as the 2011 Act, which both speeded up the timetable and further increased the pension age.  (The notices of this went out in 2012 and 2013). The effect of that Act was that women who were at that point aged (roughly) 56-58 years was that, even if they were perfectly informed, they were given less than five years, and possibly as little as two, to make alternative financial arrangements.

Parliament decided to save money at these women’s expense. There are two key objections to this.  One is that the government took away a property right – the pension that they had paid for.   The other is the breach of a fairly long-standing principle in public service, that of ‘promissory estoppel’: that people make plans and commitments guided by the advice of government and officials, and that they have the right to expect that official promises will be held to.   The bad faith, not the lack of information, is the main reason the WASPI women have been so indignant.

 

How to get Britain working – and how not to go about it

The government’s white paper, Get Britain Working, isn’t bad.  It’s reflecting on a long-standing failure of policy.  For the best part of forty years, the focus has fallen on the failings of unemployed people, rather than the structural deficiencies of the labour market.  Successive governments have tried to remedy this through increasingly punitive actions, impoverishment by design and the development of a bewildering series of agencies that are supposed to guide people into work.

This ‘White Paper’ devotes much of its attention to the problems rather than the responses – stuff that would more conventionally be the subject of a consultative Green Paper.  It does commit, however, to a substantial  increase in opportunities for young people who are not in work or education. That is no bad thing.

In my book “How to Fix the Welfare State”, I pointed to a series of misjudgments:

  • ‘Active’ labour market policy shifts the burden of unemployment to the people who experience it.
  • Incentives are not a simple matter of comparing benefit levels with wages.
  • The standard microeconomic analysis, presenting unemployment as a matter of personal choice, is an ideological prejudice, not social science.
  • Employment services have suffered by being muddled with benefits.

It’s more worrying that the White Paper has been announced by ministers in terms that are openly punitive.  “Starmer declares war on benefits Britain”, says the Mail.  “Young people who refuse to work to lo0se benefits”, says the BBC reporting Liz Kendall.  This language is poisonous. One would think that forty years of failing to drive people with skills they don’t have into jobs that don’t exist might have given policy-makers reason to think things through.

I want in this blog, however, to point to another aspect of the same policy failure, which relates to sickness and disability.  There’s rather less about this, with a Green Paper promised for next Spring.  The previous (Conservative) government issued a DWP Green Paper about disability benefits, Modernising support for independent living, which showed a disturbing failure to understand the simplest things about disability benefits: that

  • these benefits are a supplement to income
  • they are not based on an assessment of extra costs
  • they are not means tested
  • they are not about the ability to work, and so they are not lost if people work.

I have made fuller comments about that Green Paper here.    For present purposes, what matters is that these benefits hold the answer to the supposed problem that the new White Paper says it wants to address: “to change the system of health and disability benefits across Great Britain so that it better enables people to enter and remain in work.”  That is exactly why we   need benefits that are a supplement to income, not means tested and unrelated to the capacity to work.

Budget 2024: a mixed bag

The Labour government’s first budget fires a salvo of measures in the general direction of social security, some large, some small.  They include:

Pensions.  The   headline figure claims that the government is increasing the state pension by 4.1%, reflecting the increase in wages.  This is being presented as an  amount consistent with the triple lock, but that is not true.  The level of the state pension will increase by the triple lock  minus the value of the Winter Fuel Payment, typically equivalent to some £4 to £6 per week.
The Budget alse presents a cost for increased takeup of Pension Credit.  This is listed at a desultory £15m over four financial years. There may be more of an increase in takeup than the government is anticipating, because of another factor: the intention to bring Housing Benefit for pensioners into the PC system.  Takeup rates – the propotion of eligible pensioners claiming – will be low, but the absolute numbers of claimants will increase.

Benefits for disability and incapacity.  Migrating claims for Employment and Support Allowance to Universal Credit is claimed to be very costly over the next 3-4 years but then to save money in years 5 and 6, apparently through the magical process of persuading sick people to take up work.  The government seems to believe they’re in  the court of miracles, where the lame will walk and the blind will see.
The threshold that carers might earn before losing their benefit, is being updated. A small measure, that will not resolve the problem but will put off some problems  for a little time.

Fraud and error. The government aims to save £4.3bn with a crackdown on fraud (pp 40-41 of the budget red book).  This has been reported as somehow linked with benefits for disability and ill health, a misleading juxtaposition on page 2 of the red book; in fact the main focus of the budget saving is Universal Credit, a consistently ill-thought out set of reforms which have greatly increased the likelihood of error and serious fraud.  There will be an extra 3180 civil servants charged with curbing fraud and administering verification procedures.  The biggest saving, however, is supposed to come from targeted case reviews within the UC system, facilitated by new powers to investigate people’s bank accounts and assets.

Other lesser changes include extending the Help to Save scheeme, extending the surplus earnings threshold in UC, a modest but welcome ‘Fair Repayment Rate’ for people in debt to the DWP, the extension of Household Support Fund and Discretionary Housing Payments, and pilots of new schemes for  kinship and fostering.

Hold the horses: the OBR covers us in manure

The Office for Budget Responsibility has produced an alarming new report about the state of the public finances. They offer projections over 50 years, mainly 2024 to 2074, which seem to suggest that the economy will be faced with insurmountable debt and a disastrous state of public finance. The main factors they consider are the impact of climate change, demographic change, the growing cost of health care and the cost of maintaining massive public debt.

Don’t panic.  These are projections, not predictions, and a projection simply takes a present trend and follows it outward.  Forecasters are supposed to use discount rates, to allow for uncertainty; this report doesn’t do that. Some of the startling figures in these projections, particularly those related to climate change, are based on wild guesses.   The projections assume no changes in policy of any kind, no changes in the pattern of economic production, the same social codes, the same consumer behaviour, and so on. This is the same process that led the Times in 1894 to write that “in 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”   As a prediction, it’s horse manure.

 

A cut in Winter Fuel Payment is a cut in the basic pension

The Winter Fuel Payment has always come over as a little odd.  It’s not a cold weather payment – the weather is irrelevant.  It’s not really a winter payment – it’s based on the situtation in September.  It’s not actually a payment for fuel – people are free to spend it on whatever they think appropriate, and while some people will use it to pay for a little more fuel, it’s unusual to use even most of it for that.

The proposal to abolish WFP is essentially, then, a proposal to cut the income of pensioners, currently by up to £300 a year.  That cut is not self-evidently justified, because it reveals a somewhat distorted view of priorities, but it’s not fundamental either.  If the government really wanted to rethink the distribution of income to pensioners, it would make far more sense to tax the state pension (that would only affect those pensioners who had combined income from state pension and other sources above the tax threshold).   They’re not doing that, because they came to office with an undertaking not to increase personal tax rates.  Taking the money directly from pensioners may be different from tax, but it ends up in the same place.

I’ve been more concerned by a set of ill-informed public comments about the WFP.  Taking them one by one: why should rich pensioners get anything? The immediate answer to that is really simple. Pensions aren’t income-related.  All pensions go to richer pensioners as well as poorer ones.  I’ve already explained that the Winter Fuel Payment is not really tied either to winter or to fuel. The cut in WFP is nothing more, and nothing less, than a cut in pensions. 

The second question: why can’t they just claim Pension Credit?  To which the answer is: Have you looked at Pension Credit? It’s not as complicated as Universal Credit, which is a blessing, but it’s still difficult to decipher. (For example, entitlement is still expressed in weekly amounts, but pension payments are often monthly.  It becomes more complicated if Savings Credit is included: at that point, it becomes difficult to work out when people become entitled, and when they cease to be.)  Like other income-tested benefits, PC has consistently failed to reach hundreds of thousands of people who are in principle entitled.   The last estimate (2022) was that PC was received by 63% of the people entitled, and not received by 37%.

That is also the answer to the third question: why don’t we just means-test WFP?  The basic reason is again obvious. Every means-test calls for more details and more complexity.  In their heyday, there were literally thousands  of separate means-tests. (Consider, for example, the awful mess we’ve got into with local authority means-tests for residential care – but that at least relates to very large financial payments.)  We already have one, comprehensive means-test for everyone with an income.  It’s the tax system. Why create yet another complex, burdensome process to do the same job?

Means tests all fail to some degree.   It’s far, far more difficult to work out who is entitled and who is not if the assessment relies on a test of income or other resources. That is not a reason never to have any means test, because considerable numbers of people depend on the payments – but we do need to decide whether it wouldn’t better to go for simpler, broader eligibility criteria for benefits with a mass role.  I’d be in favour, for example, for a guaranteed minimum state pension, so that everyone who received a partial pension and had no occupational pension got the state pension automatically made up to a set level.

This blog is not, however, here to offer you a vision of the shining city of the future.  If WFP is so feeble, why should we keep it?  Does it matter?  Here are three reasons.

First, the principle.  The cut in WFP is a cut in pensions.  Is that merited?  Pensions in the UK are markedly lower than pensions in many of the countries we’d use as comparators – which is why the ‘triple lock’ has been used, however slowly, to bump them up a wee bit.  WFP is another way.

Second, the value of having a distinct benefit.  Benefits don’t work too well when they cover multiple contingencies.  Technically, cash benefits are ‘fungible’ – they mix together in different ways for different people.  The best and most effective way to be able to respond to particular circumstances is to have a stand-alone benefit that can be added to other income.  That’s the mechanism that the government is set to destroy.  WFP is the only system that is available to distribute benefits to everyone.  If we wanted in the future to make a lump sum available to pensioners  (and why not – we did it for the banks), this is the administrative mechanism you’d need to use.  An old rule about tax: don’t burn your instruments. You never know when you’ll need them.

Third, the economics.  WFP (and pensions overall) are not ‘public spending’.  If they’re paid out of tax, the amount of money in the economy is just the same afterwards as it was before.  Pensions are ‘transfer payments’, which mainly affect who is going to spend the money. The state does not spend the money; pensioners do.   The abolition of WFP is, crudely put, a cut in the disposable income of pensioners. That is also a cut in the financing of economic activites that the money would otherwise have been spent on.   Far too many people in the UK are destitute.  Markets don’t work if people don’t have the money to spend in them. There is a powerful case for increasing benefits overall.

Preparing for another pandemic

The first Hallett report on the management of a pandemic is disappointing.  It’s wordy and over-blown, but that’s not the main problem.  Consider this central, first recommendation for action:

“Recommendation 1: A simplified structure for whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience

The governments of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should each simplify and reduce the number of structures with responsibility for preparing for and building resilience to whole-system civil emergencies.
The core structures should be:
• a single Cabinet-level or equivalent ministerial committee (including the senior minister responsible for health and social care) responsible for whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience for each government, which meets regularly and is chaired by the leader or deputy leader of the relevant government; and
• a single cross-departmental group of senior officials in each government (which reports regularly to the Cabinet-level or equivalent ministerial committee) to oversee and implement policy on civil emergency preparedness and resilience.”

The idea behind this seems to be that the way to be effective is to give the responsibility squarely on the busiest, most senior figureheads possible. That is hopelessly naive – and it’s what led to the effective dereliction of duty when the Prime Minister couldn’t be bothered turning up to routine meetins of COBRA.  Picture the scene.  Nothing more happens for 25 years, and then we get hit again.  What will those high-level, cross-departmental groups have done in the meantime? They’ll take it seriously at first.  Then it will become more routine.  There’ll have been at least two, possibly three, new governments, and far more responsible ministers.  There’ll be changes at the level of supporting departments.  Senior staff will retire.  And someone, someone, won’t treat this as a priority any more.

The crucial test of any administrative structure is not what happens when everyone has good will, competence and commitment. It’s what happens when things go wrong.

The second complaint: Hallett thinks that our government isn’t centralised enough.

“It is therefore necessary to place in charge the only government department that has the power and authority necessary to take the lead – the Cabinet Office. It has the decision-making power of the Prime Minister and the oversight and ability to coordinate the activities of the whole government.”

This is absurd – and dangerous.  Hallet complains about ‘groupthink’, but her proposals are a recipe for more of it. In the pandemic, decisions were highly centralised.  That’s one of the principal factors which led to the single-track policy, assuming that this disease would be like flu.   People who knew how to identify the spread of disease, people who knew local areas and local systems for distribution, were sidelined.  And later, when new evidence emerged to say that the official advice (Hands-Face-Space) was off-beam – because the disease was airborne, not mainly spread by droplet – the ‘leaders’ couldn’t bring themselves to change the advice.

We’ll get on to issues about the conduct of the response in due course, but that’s for a later report.

An uninspiring election

I’ve said almost nothing about the election that’s currently taking place in the UK. The parties have not been sufficiently interested to want to engage in debate on any of the issues I happen to think, however eccentrically, are important: issues like primary care, social security, housing, access to law or schooling.

Two things are getting in the way.  The first is the contention that everything in a manifesto has to be fully costed.  I find it baffling that everything has to be costed: none of the parties seems ready to say directly, ‘these are our values’, giving a sense of purpose or direction for the period they propose to be in office. Specific costings may be good for two or three months, but then an incoming government will need to look at conflicting claims about priorities and their objectives will have to be revised, manged and reconsidered.  The convention on manifestos is mainly important because they lead to an effective veto on revision by the Lords, and the more limited the commitments, the less will be certain of passing.

The second problem is the obsession with personalities – the delusion that we are voting for a Prime Minister.  Wake up: this is not the way our system works.  If you voted for Cameron in 2015, you got May.  If you voted for May in 2017, you got Johnson. If you voted for Johnson in 2019, you got Truss and Sunak. There’s an obvious defence for Starmer against the criticism that he was campaigning  for Corbyn to be Prime Minister: no-one in our country should ever assume that they’re campaigning for a leader.  You vote for a party, and a party is a team.

I part company with most parties when it comes to  priorities.  The Labour Party has adopted a slogan long associated with the political right-wing, that security is “the first duty of any government.” That formula runs back to Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith. It’s a common rhetorical ploy to claim that one thing is so essential that it comes before everything else – the Greens make equally strong claims about climate change, the Club of Rome used to do it about finite resources – and they’re just as invalid, for the same reason – no government in the world does just one thing.  There are lots of other preconditions for the continued existence of a society which could just as plausibly be claimed – health, education, family life, international cooperation, economic growth, action against poverty, and so on. Defence is only one duty of many. I don’t think there’s any government in the world that doesn’t think it is also responsible for economic policy, and nowadays the vast majority of governments around the world have social policies extending to health care, education and cash assistance. Are these really less important than defence? Let me offer an older principle, which is also to be found in Hobbes:  Salus populi suprema lex – the welfare of the people is the highest law.

I’m not going to try to write a manifesto here, but if you look at the previous entry on my blog, you’ll find a plausible substitute. Policies for health, education, housing and social security are all discussed in my book, How to fix the welfare state.

 

How to fix the welfare state – a short introduction

Two years ago, How to fix the welfare state was published. We have an election coming up, and many of the issues that I discuss in the book will come up during political debates.  I’d like to think that the book could offer some foundation for those arguments, but bitter experience says it probably won’t.

I was looking at other material online, via the University Press system, when I came across a description of my book, and discovered that it wasn’t the material I had sent to the publisher.  Someone had obviously decided not to use the abstracts I sent in, and replaced them with gobbledegook. For example, the abstract of the last chapter now reads: “This chapter focuses on the condition of the welfare state. It notes the claims of welfare wasting money and of being undermined by fraudulent claims. The arguments for personalisation are well-meaning as the option of choice becomes available in public policy. … ” This has no direct relation to anything I’ve written, and that third sentence there makes no sense to me at all.   I’ve raised this with the publisher, but in the meantime I’m going to post the abstracts I submitted here, in the hope that anyone who’s looking for the material would prefer to judge it by something that’s minimally coherent.  If you’d like to know what basis there is for the arguments that follow – they’re all in the book.

How to fix the welfare state: abstract

The book discusses a range of issues in the British ‘welfare state’. Chapters outline the structure of services, the impact of some false and misleading narratives, and the problems that need to be addressed. Many aspects of the dominant policy narratives, such as personalisation, marketisation, when to opt for private provision or the influence of individualism, have created further problems, and diverted attention from the main issues. The book points to a range of different issues, including questions of size, centralisation, co-ordination and complexity. It points to the ways that the services have gone wrong, and makes suggestions about what they need to do to get things right.

Chapter 1: Introduction

This introductory chapter covers:
* Arguments for welfare
* The criticisms made of the welfare state from the right wing
* A brief history of social services, considering the Poor Law and after, and
* The plan of the book.

Chapter 2: Social security

Key points 
Social security provides money, to be spent in a commercial market.
Money can be brought together from different sources. It doesn’t have to be done by one benefit.
Social security is provided for many reasons, but its main purpose is to provide some secure income.
Positive developments
Most of the cost of social security currently consists of benefits offering a secure but only partial contribution towards income. Earnings-related pensions, Child Benefit and benefits for disability were all developed after the welfare state’s foundation.
Where policy has gone wrong
Some degree of selectivity is necessary, but the process is liable to fail in some cases and to leave gaps in others.
Lumping benefits together doesn’t make them simpler.
Benefits don’t have much to do with work. Tying social security to employment services has been to the detriment of both.
What to do instead
A secure income can have many components. The benefits package can be made of smaller, more specific benefits.
Benefits need to be less conditional, and more predictable. More could be universal.

Chapter 3: The NHS

Key points
The NHS offers a form of insurance, providing medical care to anyone.
Despite the dominance of hospitals, general practice is at the heart of what the NHS does.
The need for public health has been highlighted by recent experience.
Positive developments
The NHS has moved away from long-stay institutions and focused on medical care.
General practice has been greatly improved.
Where policy has gone wrong
Private markets cannot fill the gaps. They depend on producers having choices, and that leads to exclusion.
Health is public as well as individual. Reducing everything to the personal level compromises the aims of health services.
What to do instead
The health service has to provide different levels of service: decentralised general services, more specialised work for larger areas, and highly specialised centralised provision.

Chapter 4: Social care

Key points
The shift from health care has left services that are fragmentary, insecure and often expensive.
Residential care has grown because it is an effective way of providing intensive services, but not all residents need that.
Domiciliary care has been based in a flawed model of ‘personalisation’ – and a catastrophic assumption that it won’t be sustainable.
Care in any setting depends on continuing personal relationships.
Positive developments
This service did not exist when the welfare state was founded.
It was created as part of the movement away from long-stay institutions. It has its failings, but at least it has made it possible for some people to continue to live in their own homes.
Where policy has gone wrong
Personalisation has never lived up to its promise; it only works for some.
Creating something like a market in social care is no guarantee of choice.
Markets offer commodities; people who need care need something different.
What to do instead
The clients of social care need people with time and skills, not a shopping list of the tasks that workers will fulfil. Both residential and domiciliary care will need teams of carers who can offer a personal service to clients.

Chapter 5: Education

Key points
Education depends on a process of development, not on any set quantity of knowledge.
Disadvantages can be cumulative.
Positive developments
The welfare state secured free secondary education. Later developments made this comprehensive, and greatly expanded higher education.
Where policy has gone wrong
Equal opportunity is not enough; in an unequal society, it becomes the opportunity to be unequal.
Students don’t necessarily ‘catch up’ by being taught faster.
The problem of low attainment is not about how schools are managed.
What to do instead
We need a stronger focus on human development. This would include a major emphasis on primary and elementary education, a review of the secondary curriculum, and reconsideration of the structure of assessment to allow for appropriate final stage qualifications.

Chapter 6: Child protection

Key points
Most families raise children well enough. Some don’t.
Child protection is a residual service, for children where family fails.
Some things can still be done for every child. The residue of children requiring protection can be reduced but not eliminated.
Positive developments
Preventative work scarcely existed when the welfare state was founded; services could only react after the event.
Where policy has gone wrong
Some families are poor, but that is not the same as saying they are not good families.
It is not true that dependency is passed on from generation to generation.
What to do instead
Children need protection. Part can be done universally, but unavoidably part must be done individually and personally.

Chapter 7: Housing

Key points
People have to live where they can. If there are not enough houses, some people will live in unfit housing, some will have no home of their own; and some will be physically homeless.
Positive developments
The legacy of post-war policies has been a greatly improved and expanded housing stock.
Social housing continues to provide essential, good quality housing to those who cannot afford adequate housing within a market-oriented system.
Where policy has gone wrong
The housing market does not work in the way that free-marketeers imagine.
The issues of tenure and affordability disguise the real issues: access and deprivation.
The problems of the housing system are structural, not the result of individual failings.
What to do instead
We need a substantial, continuing increase in the stock of housing, in order to ensure access and adequate standards.
A programme of regeneration is needed to save towns and regions that have been marginalised.

Chapter 8: Employment services

Key points
The level of employment is mainly dependent on the economy, not on individual effort.
At their best, employment services offer support and training to help people engage with the labour market; but they cannot create jobs or guarantee decent employment.
Positive developments
Where macroeconomic policies have been applied, they have greatly diminished the level of unemployment.
Where policy has gone wrong
‘Active’ labour market policy shifts the burden of unemployment to the people who experience it.
Incentives are not a simple matter of comparing benefit levels with wages.
The standard microeconomic analysis, presenting unemployment as a matter of personal choice, is an ideological prejudice, not social science.
Employment services have suffered by being muddled with benefits.
What to do instead
Unemployment is a waste of human resources. We need large numbers of people in a range of professions. Government can, and should, create jobs. It can do this through expanding public employment.

Chapter 9: Equalities and human rights

Key points
‘Equality’ is about the removal of disadvantage. ‘Equalities’ refer to specific disadvantages.
The disadvantages can be cumulative.
Positive developments
The services described here, and the principles on which they are founded, were hardly thought of at the time of the foundation of the welfare state.
Where policy has gone wrong
Human rights outline the bare minimum; citizens need more than that.
What to do instead
Legal redress is fundamental to justice, but it only goes so far. The law has to be clearly stated, and legal protection has to be accessible and affordable.

Chapter 10: Public services

Key points
Public services are guided by public policy. They work to different criteria from private services.
Universal services can be available to anyone; some are available to everyone.
Positive developments
At a time when public services have been eroded or privatised, some have gone against the trend: charges for prescriptions and eye tests have been removed in Scotland, charges for museums were introduced but then abolished, several areas have introduced bus passes for older people and those with disabilities, there are planned extensions of free school meals and transport for children.
Some private firms have recognised the case for free public access.
Where policy has gone wrong
Markets sometimes fail, and market provision is always incomplete. That is tolerable in some fields and not in others.
What to do instead
Some services are better taken out of the private market. The more this can be done, the greater the security the welfare state will offer.

Chapter 11:  Towards a stronger welfare state

The concluding chapter considers issues more generally, reviewing
* Misleading trends – choice and personalization, privatisation and marketisation, individualisation
* General problems: problems of size, centralization, coordination, practical capacity, and cost
* Approaches to reform.