Select Committee on Work and Pensions Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Trades Union Congress (ES 09A)


  Dear Mr Exell,

  The Committee took oral evidence today from Laurie Heselden on behalf of TUC. There were a number of questions which arose and to which the Committee would greatly appreciate written replies. I should be grateful if the replies could be received by next Tuesday 14 May.

  The questions are as follows:


  The section on New Deal for Young People (NDYP) draws attention to various issues. In paragraph 17, concern is expressed that one graduate in four who gets a job leaves in the first three months, and paragraph 18 demonstrates that there are quite wide differences in the success of the various options.

    Your memorandum shows various concerns about the success of the NDYP. Why do you think so many graduates leave their jobs before three months?

    To what do you ascribe the differences of success of the available options in NDYP?

  Of particular concern is the number of participants in the subsidised employment option—only 15.7 per cent compared with a planning assumption of 40 per cent.

    Why do you think the subsidised employment option was much less popular than expected?

  Paragraphs 21 and 22 contain some statistics about reasons for dismissal in the NDYP and New Deal 25+, including 60 per cent of those who left being dismissed for poor attendance.

    Can you explain to the Committee why the percentages in the sections shown in paragraph 21 do not seem to add up to 100?

    If your conclusion that "New Deal recruits . . . are not yet job ready" is correct, what more could and should be done to improve this failure rate?


  The Trades Union Congress has reservations about the use of sanctions, because research has shown that sanctions were disproportionately applied to ethnic minority claimants, people with caring responsibilities and those with health problems (paragraph 35).

    For what reasons do you believe that sanctions are disproportionately applied to certain groups of claimants?

    Do you believe other forms of pressure are appropriate in encouraging people into work and, if so, what?

  Reference is made in the memorandum to differences of results for various groups, particularly ethnic minority claimants (see paragraphs 24, 29 and 41). It is asserted in paraparagraph 24 that there is racial discrimination in the labour market and the TUC calls on the Government, in paragraph 41, to "maintain its commitment to eliminating the race gap in all the New Deal programmes".

    What additional measures should the Government take to accelerate the eradication of the race gap in New Deal programmes to which you refer?

    Do you think the Government should target particular areas with additional help in order to raise employment rates amongst black and ethnic minorities?

    What particular role might be played by Jobcentre Plus in raising employment rates amongst black and ethnic minorities?


  The TUC draws attention to the need for "a more explicit co-ordination of employment and industrial policy strategies" at regional level (paragraph 70) and suggests in paragraph 72 that there is a "lack of a co-ordinated approach at the regional level".

    Your memorandum suggests that there should be more co-ordination of employment strategy at local & regional level. How do you think co-ordination could be improved?

    The TUC supports various initiatives such as Employment Zones and local strategic partnerships. You suggest in paraparagraph 78 of your memorandum that the collaborative approach should be developed further in the years to come. What further development do you envisage?

    How can the RDAs be strengthened in order to set them within a wider economic strategy for the regions?

    RDAs now receive funding from central Government in a single funding "pot". What are your views about this approach and could it be applied to the delivery of work preparation programmes like New Deal and to the improvement of skills?

  The TUC memorandum in paragraphs 79-82 highlights perceived weaknesses in the co-ordination of employment programmes, particularly "between programmes run by different departments aimed at fairly similar client groups" (paragraph 81).

    What specifically does the TUC believe should be done to improve co-ordination between Government Departments and to avoid unnecessary duplication in employment initiatives?

  Finally, it was mentioned in the oral evidence that there was a "catch-22 situation" with the Rapid Response Service, inasmuch as the money for the service cannot be made available until Redundancy Notices are issued. Can you please let the Committee have the relevant dates in the Vauxhall Luton case?

  Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Philip Moon

8 May 2002

Correspondence with the Senior Policy Officer and the Clerk of the Committee

  Dear Philip,

The impact of economic slowdown on the Government's employment strategy

  Thank you for your letter of 8 May, seeking written replies to a number of questions that arose when the Committee took the TUC's oral evidence. Our replies are given below.

Why so many New Deal graduates leave their jobs before three months.

  The first point to be made is that we don't really know whether the proportion of New Deal graduates whose jobs are not sustained is high or not. The New Deal is the first active labour market programme in which a serious effort has been made to monitor sustained job tenure, and we don't know whether the current drop out rate of one in four is higher or lower than previous programmes. For previous programmes there was anecdotal evidence of the Employment Service counting as positive outcomes job placements they knew would only last a few weeks, and the TUC and other organisations repeatedly called on the Government to monitor sustained job outcomes.

  Obviously, one area of concern for unions is employer abuse of the subsidy, and we have been vigilant for instances of employers letting New Deal recruits go when the subsidy ends. As we indicate in paragraphs 21 and 22 of our submission, we do not at present believe that this is happening, [71]but we will continue to monitor the programme for any evidence that this is happening.

  Most of the jobs obtained by New Deal graduates are entry-level jobs, with fairly low pay. Hales et al surveyed employers between September 1999 and January 2000, and found that median gross starting hourly wages were at £3.50 for NDYP. [72]At this time the national minimum wage for young people and trainees was £3.00. It would not be surprising if there were to be a significant group of graduates who move on to new jobs quite quickly.

  There has been a high proportion of participants who are not job-ready, or who have problems that would be likely to have an impact on their ability to stay in employment. found Hales et al found: [73]

    —  23 per cent of those in subsidised jobs had no qualifications;

    —  just 36 per cent had previous experience of the same or similar tasks or the same type of employer, while 15 per cent had no work experience whatsoever;

    —  27 per cent had been unemployed for more than a year;

    —  11 per cent were disabled; and

    —  10 per cent had literacy problems.

  There could be a number of reasons for this. One possibility is that participants who are not really job-ready have been referred to vacancies because, as unemployment has fallen, so more job ready young unemployed people have found work before they become eligible for the New Deal, and the proportion of not-job-ready participants has risen. There may also be a problem with PAs' assessments of clients.

  In 1998 the New Deal Task Force reported[74] on the problems faced by the most disadvantaged participants, making a number of recommendations:

    —  Improved case management:

    —  Specialist case management for the most disadvantaged young people.

    —  Intensified Gateway services, including "option tasters".

    —  They should also have continuing access to the specialist support while they are on options and in the follow-through period.

    —  Licensed independent New Deal entry points as an alternative to Jobcentres.

    —  Pilots on bringing into the New Deal disadvantaged young people who are not on benefit.

    —  Pilot programmes of in-work support for employers and young people.

  Some recommendations have been acted upon—such as tasters and post-placement support—but others were rejected. Another Task Force working group, in 1999 looked at the problem from the employer's point of view. [75]Again, some recommendations have been acted upon, but others have not been:

    —  a more intensive Gateway for those who are not job ready;

    —  specialist support during options;

    —  more flexibility about sequencing, combining and the length of options for the most disadvantaged participants;

    —  not referring participants to jobs unless they can meet employers' specifications;

    —  an emphasis on basic skills, interpersonal/communication skills and "soft skills";

    —  managing Personal Advisers so they understand employers' requirements, brief participants on what to expect from the job; and maintain communication with the employer;

    —  work on industries and occupations likely to grow;

    —  develop sectoral gateways;

    —  use sponsors for the FTET, ETF and VS options to make them more relevant to local employers;

    —  more manageable caseloads for Personal Advisers.

Why different options have different success rates

  In our view, the key difference is between the subsidised employment option and the others. As we indicate in paragraph 18 of our submission, this is the only option with over 50 per cent of leavers leaving for subsidised employment.

  They key difference between this option and the others is that this is the only option in which participants are paid a real wage, rather than "benefits plus". This is an important issue: a major study of employers' attitudes, [76]found that it is important for unemployed people to stay in touch with a "workplace-like culture" as employers are particularly likely to be concerned about the deterioration of work disciplines when considering recruiting unemployed people. Recruiters are more likely to take experience work experience seriously if participants have been paid a wage. Other work experience programmes will be seen as "make work", and will not add lustre to a CV.

  Unemployed people also take "real jobs" more seriously than "make work." Early focus-group research for the DfEE found that the fact the employment option would offer the going rate was "a key appeal," crucially discriminating it from past schemes, while benefit plus was widely seen as "exploitative/punitive and reminiscent of past schemes"

  This has been an issue since the first Pathfinders began. [77]An early investigation into what participants want found: [78]

    —  In the Gateway, there was "a marked preference" for the subsidised employment option (together with (F.T.E.T.).

    —  Later on, "Individuals were enthusiastic about joining this option. It was felt to offer: long-term employment prospects, the status of being employed, and was perceived as a move from unemployment to `real work.'"

    —  The Voluntary Sector Option "was greeted with less enthusiasm than either F.T.E.T. or subsidised employment. It was not the first choice of some and others had felt `pushed into it', experiences which added to existing negative views . . ." Work on this option "was generally described as monotonous and repetitive" and "training was widely criticised . . . as very limited, or, in some cases, totally absent." Some participants "felt they were not receiving adequate pay for the work which they were undertaking."

  "A series of case studies conducted after the national rollout in April 1998 found that the Environment Task Force, in particular, had a high proportion of participants who had been told to join, rather than volunteering, (and a high proportion of participants with severe problems.) [79]It is important not to over-state the extent of dissatisfaction with New Deal options. The most extensive survey so far of young people's views of the New Deal[80] found that, of those on an Option, 87 per cent were satisfied with it. This survey, however, also found that satisfaction was highest for the employment option, and lowest for the Environmental Task Force.

  The sense that some options are more popular than others is confirmed by the figures for sanctions relating to New Deal options: [81]

OptionProportion of
Proportion of
Subsidised employment7.0% 16.8%
Full-time education or training23.4% 20.8%
Voluntary sector 25.6% 22.7%
Environmental Task Force44.0% 39.6%

Why the subsidised employment option was much less popular than expected

  As indicated above, this option was not less popular with participants. The important question is therefore why it has been less popular with employers.

  The high proportion of participants who are not job-ready is not only likely to affected their ability to keep jobs, it is also likely to have affected employers' perceptions of New Deal. Hales et al, for instance, found that, when employers were asked for their views, 65 per cent said their New Deal recruits had problems with health, ability or social skills. [82]This confirmed earlier research, [83]which looked at the NDYP client group, and found:

    —  21 per cent had no qualifications;

    —  43 per cent said they had been "mainly unemployed," and a further 28 per cent had never had a job;

    —  just 10 per cent said they had "mainly had steady jobs."

  We believe that there is room significantly to expand take up of the employment subsidy in the public sector. The Local Government National Training Organisation's 2001 New Deal survey, for instance, showed just 1,639 people being employed or trained through the New Deal programmes by local authorities. [84]If we look at the New Deal monitoring data for December 2001, we see that local authorities accounted for just 9.1 per cent of NDYP subsidised jobs. It is worth bearing in mind that, when the New Deal was being designed there was a suggestion that the employment subsidy might be limited to private sector employers. After a great deal of lobbying, the public sector was allowed to participate, provided the percentage of subsidised jobs in the public sector did not exceed 25 per cent!

Why the percentages in paragraph 21 of our submission do not total 100 per cent

  Some participants were dismissed for more than one reason, and I apologise for the fact that our submission did not make this clear.

What should be done about the problem of people being sent on the employment option before they are job-ready.

  Of course, a majority subsidised employment option graduates are job-ready, and, as indicated above, a proportion of those who do not sustain their employment will be moving on to better jobs. Nonetheless, the proportion who lose their jobs is clearly too high. The list of reasons for dismissal in Hales et al is very suggestive:

    —  poor attendance 63 per cent;

    —  insufficient quality of work 34 per cent;

    —  disobedience 16 per cent;

    —  dishonesty 11 per cent; and

    —  other reasons 19 per cent.

  These are classic indicators of lack of "soft skills", young people who do not understand what the world of work is about. That is why the TUC has a great deal of sympathy with employers' complaints that Jobcentres sometimes either fail to identify participants who are not yet ready for employment, or do not succeed in getting them ready. Winterbotham et al found[85] in 2001 that employers said they wanted to see "improved screening of New Deal candidates that they are sent."

  Some of the New Deal Task Force recommendations reported above in paragraph 1 could make a difference, and the Government has responded with some important measures, such as the Gateway courses. Other recommendations have not yet been fully implemented:

    —  during the Gateway, improved case management, including specialist case management for the most disadvantaged young people;

    —  during the Gateway, an emphasis on basic skills, interpersonal/communication skills and "soft skills";

    —  during the option, continuing access to specialist support; and

    —  during and after the option, more flexibility about sequencing, combining and the length of options.

  However, it is worth remembering that one of the reasons employers are given a subsidy and help with training costs is to compensate them for the fact that these recruits will not be quite as job-ready as other young people. The measures listed above should go hand-in-hand with a gentle reminder to employers that they are expected to do something in return for their subsidy.

Why we believe that sanctions are disproportionately applied to certain groups of claimants

  In paragraph 35 of our submission we refer to a Government study. [86]This study reported that, under the pre-New Deal regime, JSA sanctions were disproportionately likely to be applied to ethnic minority claimants, people with caring responsibilities, and those with health problems.

  There are good grounds for expecting there to be a similar problem in New Deal sanctioning. We know that, as reported in our answer to question 2, participants in the work experience options—and especially ETF—are disproportionately likely to be sanctioned. The Environmental Task Force and Voluntary Sector options are the least popular, [87]and therefore most likely to be entered by those with no alternatives.

  The Tavistock Institute researchers who looked at the impact of NDYP noted that the Environmental Task Force was being relied on by Personal Advisers working with participants who faced severe disadvantages in getting a job—such as those with caring responsibilities or health problems. [88]Several reports have found that the most disadvantaged New Deal participants are those most dissatisfied with it, [89]which would provide a motive for leaving, failing to attend or not taking up an option, and thus becoming liable to a sanction.

  Admittedly, this is all circumstantial, but it is fairly convincing nonetheless.

Our views on other forms of pressure in encouraging people into employment

  It is worth remembering that, in this story, unemployed people are the victims, not the villains. Study after study of unemployed people has found that a large majority want jobs, and do not have to be encouraged into employment. [90]The evaluation of Jobseeker's Allowance is particularly valuable, based as it is on a cohort survey of 5,000 people claiming unemployment benefits before the introduction of JSA. As this survey looked at the cohort of claimants at two points in time, it provided a clear insight into whether unemployed people do, as is often assumed, become demotivated over time and therefore require added incentives to look for work.

  "The second survey interview confirmed that the vast majority of claimants were steadfastly committed to finding work and actively seeking it. In aggregate, job-search at the time of the second interview remained at the same level as it had been six months earlier, and there was no evidence of widespread indolence or people becoming enamoured with life on benefit".

  Furthermore, the survey found that "while respondents admitted to periods of disillusionment during which they ceased making job applications, there was no evidence at all of a systematic decline in the commitment to find work as their time on benefit increased." [91]

  The assumption that unemployed people have to be forced into jobs or programmes that will make them more employable is wrong in principle. We also believe that reliance on benefit sanctions tends to lower the quality of active labour market programmes. Denying the consumers of these programmes the right of "exit", without any compensating "voice" rights, removes the most effective pressure on providers to run programmes that actually succeed at moving people into employment.

None of this is to argue that unemployed people should be passive recipients of benefits, merely waiting for a job to come along, and the TUC supports the idea of "no fifth option." Offering unemployed people a choice of options to help them back to employment—but insisting that they do actually have to choose one of them—seems to us to be a fair balance of rights and responsibilities.

We believe, however, that the "three strikes and you're out" 26 weeks sanctions go too far. In particular, we are concerned that, without complementary extra provision for the hardest to help—who are least likely to have an effective choice of options - they will penalise the vulnerable, rather than those who are playing the system.

What additional measures the Government should take to address the race gap

  One reason why the TUC is sympathetic to the Government in its attempt to address this issue is that it is such a difficult problem. We know that it is not caused by Jobcentre Plus staff discriminating against black and ethnic minority participants, as the Government's monitoring data shows that participants from ethnic minority groups are not being referred to fewer job opportunities than white participants. Furthermore, the Government is already:

    —  Carrying out ethnic monitoring of the New Deal.

    —  Identifying those New Deal delivery units that are under-performing, and seeking to bring them up to the level of other units in which the race gap is less apparent.

    —  Instructing all Jobcentres to address barriers due to ethnicity.

    —  Providing training and information for Jobcentre staff.

    —  Working with the New Deal Task Force's Minority Ethnic Advisory Group.

    —  Contracting with ethnic minority voluntary organisations to provide expertise in areas where ethnic inequality is a particularly serious problem.

  These measures reflect most of the suggestions made by the Commission for Racial Equality when New Deal was being designed. The CRE also recommended that there should be targets for representation of ethnic minority young people, and this would be a possible candidate for additional action. Some examples of best practice, developed at a local level, may also be worth imitating:

    —  In Coventry, to build up links to the community, "Gateway centres" were established in city centre Jobcentres and in housing estates outside the city. [92]

    —  In Bolton, an Ethnic Minority Forum, representing 15 different organisations, was established. [93]

    —  In Portsmouth, an Ethnic Minority Development Worker was appointed, to help clients with CVs, letter writing, interviews and confidence building. [94]

    —  In Harlesden, Local Employment Access Projects (LEAP) a small non-profit organisation with a 90 per cent black clientele, developed a recruitment service for local employers alongside its programme of help for clients with job-winning skills. Clients' interviews are followed by debriefings for both the employer and the client, and LEAP led the way in offering clients post-placement support. [95]

Whether the Government should target particular areas with extra resources in order to raise employment rates amongst black and ethnic minorities

  Of course, this is something the Government is already doing, primarily through Employment Zones and Action Teams. In the past, geographically-focused policies have been criticised by anti-poverty campaigners, on the grounds that most very poor people did not live in the areas targeted, and that most of the people who did live there were not the very poor. That criticism, however, missed out the racial dimension of this issue, and the EZs and Action Teams may well prove to be effective at targeting black and ethnic minority poverty and unemployment.

  The Government is particularly proud of Employment Zones, set up in 15 unemployment blackspots. [96]By the end of July 2001, 13,917 participants (53 per cent of leavers) had secured jobs, [97]and there are no differences between outcomes for men and women or between black and white participants.

  Towards the end of 2000, 40 Action Teams for Jobs were established in areas with high levels of unemployment and large ethnic minority populations. With a budget for 2001-04 of £122 million, their initial brief is to run till March 2004, and the initial results are very good, with 13,500 participants helped into work in the first year[98] and the Government is already very enthusiastic about them.

The role of Jobcentre Plus

  The TUC welcomed the creation of Jobcentre Plus—combining benefit delivery and labour market reintegration opens the doors to new synergies, and the removal of labour market obstacles in the way of socially excluded people. A key task for the new agency will be to provide local managers with access to sufficient discretionary funds for the outreach and community liaison operations that can make a great deal of difference to progress on this issue.

Co-ordination, Regional Employment and Industrial Policy

  The TUC is currently preparing a policy paper on the RDAs and economic/employment strategies at the regional level that will flesh out the sections of our submission dealing with your Committee's questions. Unfortunately, this will not be published till the summer. At present our most detailed policy proposals can be found in our submission to the Committee, and our Budget Submission to the Chancellor.

  I have enclosed a copy of the Submission,[99] and would particularly draw your attention to our proposals for increased funding for the RDAs in Section Three.


  Finally you asked about the Rapid Response Service and Vauxhall Luton. The relevant dates were:

12 December 2000
Closure of car production at Luton announced by GM
13 December 2000Vauxhall Luton Partnership established
18 October 2001Rapid Response Fund bid submitted
23 November 2001RRF bid approved

    —  During the period between December and October dialogue between the DTI and Vauxhall Luton Partnership advised that a RRF application could not be considered because GM had not issued redundancy notices.

    —  GM, however, refused to issue redundancy notices as they were insistent that this was not a redundancy situation—no workers would be made compulsorily redundant (also a union objective.)

    —  The company was also concerned not to disrupt production/productivity. There was a strong feeling among the workforce that the closure would not happen, the company was concerned that workers taking time off for interviews etc would damage productivity.

  The Rapid Response Fund money was eventually very useful, but would have been most useful at the very beginning, enabling other funding sources to be assembled. The training courses provided with RRF money have necessarily overrun the closure, which means that some participants have dropped out, probably for good material reasons.

  Hence, the Rapid Response Fund was not Rapid (taking nearly a year) and widely agreed objectives of assisting individual workers and local businesses were frustrated through what was a technicality—a clear example of process obstructing performance.

  I hope these replies are helpful.

Richard Exell

14 May 2002

71   This was also the conclusion of one of the early evaluation reports on the New Deal (New Deal for young unemployed people: a good deal for employers? Snape, Keegan and George, SCPR for ES, December 1998), which found that ‚There was little evidence of employers intending to use New Deal to subsidise their wage bill by continually recruiting and laying off New Deal recruits-all but one employer were offering permanent jobs.‚ Back

72   New Deal for Young People and long-term Unemployed: Survey of Employers, Jon Hales, Debbie Collins, Chris Hasluck and Steve Woodland, National Centre for Social Research, ES Report 58, September 2000, p 63. Back

73   Op cit, cap 4, passim. Back

74   Meeting the Needs of Disadvantaged Young People, report of a committee chaired by Victor Adebowale. Back

75   How to increase job retention by New Deal clients-report of a Task Force committee chaired by Stephanie Monk, 1999. Back

76   Employers, Recruitment and the Unemployed, Atkinson J, Giles L & Meager N, Institute for Employment Studies, 1996. Back

77   This has concerned everyone involved in the programme, since its first days. The New Deal Specification Document for bidders, written in 1998, said that providers of the VS and ETF options had to offer "high quality work placements" offering "worthwhile and attractive opportunities," and specified that they must not be capable of being "construed as `make-work'". Back

78   The New Deal for Young People: The Pathfinder Options, K Woodfield, R Turner and J Mitchie, Employment Service report ESR25, based on interviews with 107 participants in four Pathfinder areas in late 1998 and early 1999. Back

79   The New Deal for Young People: National Case Studies of Delivery and Impact, ESR 30, Tavistock Institute for Employment Service, November 1999. Back

80   National Survey of Participants, A Bryson, G Knight and M White, PSI, ES report ESR44, March 2000, based on interviews in Spring 1999 with 6,010 participants who joined the programme in Autumn 1998. Back

81   Sanction figures taken from the Analysis of Sector Decision Making for quarter ending 31-12-01, Employment Service, 2002, p 3. Figures for the proportion of participants in options in September 2000, taken from the monitoring data for December 2001, table 2. Back

82   Op cit, p 55. Back

83   Young Unemployed People, ESR19, Walker et al, July 1999. Back

84   Local Government Employment Digest, local government Employers' Organisation, March 2002. Back

85   Evaluation of New Deal for Long Term Unemployed People: Enhanced National Programme, by Mark Winterbotham, Lorna Adams and Chris Hasluck, ES report 82. Back

86   JSA Evaluation: Qualitative Research on Disallowed and Disqualified Claimants, J Vincent and B Dobson, DfEE Research report 15, 1997. Back

87   In 2000, 82 per cent of those on the full-time education and training option said it was what they really wanted to do, compared with 64 per cent of those on the employment option, 59 per cent of those on the Voluntary Sector Option and 46 per cent of those in the Environmental Task Force. National Survey of Participants, A Bryson, G Knight and M White, PSI, ES report ESR44, March 2000. Back

88   The New Deal for Young People: National Case Studies of Delivery and Impact, ESR 30, Tavistock Institute for Employment Service, November 1999. Back

89   The National Survey of Participants, for instance, found that, while 47 per cent of participants were completely or very satisfied with their PAs, people from disadvantaged groups were least satisfied. Similarly, while nearly two thirds believed that the New Deal was very or fairly useful, those from disadvantaged groups were least likely to think this. Back

90   See, for instance, "Unemployment and Attitudes to Work", D Gallie and C Vogler, in Social Change and the Experience of Unemployment, Gallie, Marsh and Vogler (eds) 1994. Living Standards During Unemployment, P Heady and M Smyth, HMSO, 1989. Unemployment and Health, P Taylor, Campaign for Work, September 1991. Motivation, Unemployment and Employment Department Programmes, M Banks and J Davies, Employment Department, 1991. "Unhappiness, Unemployment and Economic Policy". A Oswald and A Clark, The Economic Journal, Summer 1994. Employment Service National Customer Satisfaction Survey, ES Research and Evaluation Report, 1994. Employment in Britain, Employment Department and Employment Service, 1992. "The Employment Commitment of Unemployed People", Gallie et al, in Unemployment and Public Policy in a Changing Labour Market, ed M White, PSI, 1994. Incomes In and Out of Work, Garman et al, DSS, 1992. Tackling Unemployment: A Business Agenda, CBI, November 1994. Back

91   Unemployment and Jobseeking Before Jobseeker's Allowance, S McKay et al, DSS Research Report 73, 1997. Around two thirds of the sample had already been unemployed for some time before the first interview took place. Back

92   From Policy to Practice, Employment Service, 1999, pp 4-5. Back

93   Ibid, p 40. Back

94   Ibid, p 42. Back

95   Reported in Improving the Employment Prospects of Low Income Jobseekers, Chris Evans et al, New Deal Task Force, 1999. Back

96   DfEE Press Release 98/00, 8-3-00. Back

97   Employment Zones website [] on 20/11/01. Back

98   DWP Press Release, 15 October. Back

99   TUC Budget submission 2002-not printed.


previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 13 June 2002