The details of David Freud's review to John Hutton is due to be reported tomorrow on reinvigorating the UK's approach to welfare to work. Over the last few years the UK has been recognised as a world leader in this (and other aspects) of its broader social policy. Drawing an analogy with sport - if you're a world leader, there's only one way to go if you don't continue to improve, and that's down. Hence many people have spent time looking at ways to continue to evolve the UK's approach to be 'world leading' in the future.

I was fortunate enough to have a couple of hours one to one with David as he was doing the research for his review. I'll make a few more observations after the report is published tomorrow - like everyone else I am keen to see what is in it! Nevertheless, in advance of the report there were a couple of key issues that we spent time talking about which are close to my heart.

The first is how to deal with the most vulnerable benefit recipients in our society. Over the last 15 years this has become a passion of mine. A phrase the UK government used a few years ago is as relevant today as it has ever been - 'work for those who can, support for those who can't.' David was interested in views on whether - by enhancing the role of the private and voluntary sector - there should be customers (people on benefit) who should be exempted from services.

My response was that I tend to come from the other direction. If we can work with a customer for 3 years, we should not 'label' anyone as being 'unable' to access opportunities. With technology and communication advances and movements forward in health and well-being (both physical and mental) everyone should be provided with opportunity. As an alternative, my suggestion was that organisations working in this sector should be asked to outline their approach and vision for supporting the most vulnerable. It is essential that suppliers of these services are able to provide the most comprehensive support to vulnerable individuals. This is wholly consistent with also asking suppliers how they would work with the more job ready to help them.
The reason for my approach is that one of the UK's greatest assets in welfare reform is the focus on engaging with the hardest to help. It is one of the reasons we have such a vibrant delivery and supply in the voluntary and community sector, such a strong public service ethos in our public sector service providers and such variety of private sector suppliers.

A4e has been approached to work in the US and Australia in particular because of our pedigree - and the UK's - in working with the hardest to help. In some cases, the welfare system in these countries has not had quite the success with the hardest to help. They have had more of a focus on those - relatively - easier to get back into work. In the UK, we must not fall into the same trap with our welfare reform and supporting the most vulnerable is a crucial part of our approach. We must not make the mistake of isolating individuals 'outside' services because of a fear they will be pressed into inappropriate activities or put under inappropriate pressure to work. We must specify and commission a system that gives them positive support because over the longer term, everyone has an opportunity to make a positive contribution.

The second area I wanted to mention which we discussed is choice. If you've made it this far down the page - thank you, and don't worry, this bit is shorter. I'm not a great believer in 'choice' for the sake of trying to justify customer freedom in a mandatory (or conditional) programme. In most cases where I have seen empirical evidence of where we have used 'multiple suppliers' to give people choice, distance is the only real reason people choose one supplier ahead of another. As such having one or more providers of 'the same' service doesn't really seem to give the customer much real choice.

In talking to customers, by far the more important determinant of 'choice' is making sure that a full range of services is available to people. This is most likely to be through a rich and wide variety of organisations in a network (working under an over-arching contractor) which address the very broad range of issues customers on benefit need support with. This will include voluntary, private and public organisations that can provide the tapestry of support required from the most vulnerable to the most motivated to get back into work. The key is coordinating the activity and gearing to an individual - personalising, customising and managing the support to provide the person with the very best support to help them into work and most importantly sustain them in work. But that's for another day after the review is published.....

In reforming our welfare system, we need to remember we have done some good things that people around the world want to learn from. But if you're not in work, or on benefits and struggling, that's no good to you. So we need to improve and do more. So long as we always put the customer first - focus on how to best help the individual - then we will be better tomorrow. And it's OK for this to be a two way deal - it always has been and always will be - the trick is making that work.