Keep Britain Working: What the new Mayfield report misses for employers

Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working report, previewed recently at the Nuffield Foundation, takes aim at Britain’s labour market challenges. We were particularly interested in what it might mean for government and employers in this blog, from policy changes to practical actions on the ground.

With the Keep Britain Working report now published, we give our overview in this blog. Our takeaway is that, while the report is an important step in the right direction, employers will need clearer, more practical guidance if the Mayfield review is to make a real impact in this Parliament.

The number of working age people out of work due to ill health has been climbing in the UK, with 2.8 million people currently in this position and is likely to increase further in the coming years.

For employees, the costs are much greater than simply missing out on earnings, with absences from work making it harder to work in the future, affecting career progression and damaging wellbeing. Of course, sickness and economic inactivity also place a significant cost on employers and the state. So it’s very welcome to see this focus on achieving a healthier and happier workforce.

The report gives a good overview of three major problems holding back progress.

• Fear: First, both employers and employees are fearful of discussing and tackling sickness. This is understandable, but it blocks the constructive dialogue needed to build a solution
• Support: Second, both parties often lack the support they need. While large employers regularly offer assistance programmes and training to managers, smaller firms rarely can. Additionally, the reliance on fit notes is not working. Those providing them don’t always have the expertise or visibility needed to do so well, for workers, they rarely represent the nuance of their situation and ability to work, and for employers, they become an obstruction to ongoing contact
• Barriers: Third, people with disabilities face ongoing barriers to being part of the workforce, reporting a clash of ‘rights against reality’ and a constant need to self-advocate

Combined, these issues are limiting the ability of employers to prevent employees from leaving work, or worse still, leaving the workforce.

It’s good to see the report explicitly acknowledge the responsibility on employers and the unique role they can play in preventing sick leave and workforce exit. An emphasis is placed on employers ‘re-humanising the workplace’ and developing a set of certified standards based on emerging evidence to overcome the fear and discomfort that often holds back effective management of workplace health and sickness.

Given the vast benefits we’ve seen data innovation deliver for our clients and partners, the focus on using data to identify what works is very welcome, and the establishment of a new Workplace Health Intelligence Unit as a vehicle to produce evidence and drive adoption of new standards is an important step in embedding long-term cultural and operational change.

The government’s role is two-fold: to enable and to incentivise. There is an important acknowledgement that such significant changes may be challenging for some employers to deliver, especially smaller firms with fewer resources. The report makes a range of suggestions, from NHS partnerships to pooled-risk models, but many employers will be waiting for more details to emerge.

The main limitation of the report is its lack of detail, particularly on what actions it expects from employers. Several key questions remain unanswered:

• What data should employers collect to start building the evidence base?
• Which incentives are going to effectively change employer behaviour?
• What support will enable middle management to deliver, and take greater responsibility for retention?

This lack of detail means that significant change still feels a long way off. The seven year time horizon, acknowledged in the report, raises concerns about a loss of momentum, lack of consensus and inconsistent adoption.

The immediate launch of a ‘vanguard phase’ – an initial period of data gathering, analysis and defining best practice – and with the announcement of such early adopters as Google, Sainsbury’s and British Airways, means that we hope more specifics will emerge soon.

With the Timms review of disability benefits delaying any changes to disability assessments for at least a year, and the replacement of fit notes with unspecified non-clinical Workplace Health Provision feeling very remote, I don’t think it will take any pressure away from the Autumn statement.

The focus throughout Sir Charlie’s report is on collaborative, evidence-led solutions across the employment sector, and this provides a welcome opportunity to reset the conversation around tackling economic inactivity.

The previously published Get Britain Working white paper laid out a broad range of intentions: rebuilding trust in assessment processes, revamping contribution based benefits, reforming the JobCentre Plus network into an effective, locally led skills and careers service.

Unfortunately, the controversial cuts to sickness and disability benefits and subsequent U-turns narrowed the discussion down to the size of the benefit bill and how to bring it down.

This review is a welcome acknowledgement that improving access to work for disabled people needs to be much more than a cost cutting exercise, and is a reminder of both the scope needed, and the opportunities presented by a new deal on workplace health.

But we need action alongside the intentions in these reports.

• Read a blog: Disability benefit reforms: key changes and what comes next
• Read a case study: How Haringey Council reduces barriers to work with data led employment campaigns
• Listen to a webinar: Disability reforms and devolved employment support: What does good look like?