Select Committee on Work and Pensions Third Report


5 Efficiencies

62. DWP has been challenged to find efficiency savings following Sir Peter Gershon's Review of Public Sector Efficiency, published in July 2004.[137] In this chapter we discuss whether the Pension Service can make the required efficiencies without compromising delivery of Pension Credit to its customers.

Targets for staff reductions in the Pension Service

63. In March 2004, prior to the Budget, the then Secretary of State told the Committee that the Department was planning to cut 18,345 posts by March 2006, as a result of 'the major modernisation programme agreed as part of the 2002 Spending Review (SR) settlement'.[138] These reductions included a 43% cut in Pensions Service staff from 19,945 to 11,300 (see table 1 below).Table 1 Planned staff reductions in DWP as at March 2004
31 Dec 2003

Actual staffing

31 Mar 2006

Planned staffing

Planned cuts % change 2003/2006
Jobcentre Plus80,848 76,6004,248 -5%
The Pension Service 19,94511,300 8,645-43%
Child Support Agency 10,7198,000 2,719-25%
Disability & Carers Directorate 7,3206,900 420-6%
Corporate Centre*12,113 9,8002,313 -19%
Total DWP130,945 112,60018,345 -14%

*including Debt Management Source: Based on letter from the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rt Hon Andrew Smith, to the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, Sir Archy Kirkwood, Department for Work and Pensions - Staffing Levels, 10 March 2004

64. Following the Gershon Review, DWP agreed to find a further 11,655 cuts across the Department as part of the challenge to find annual efficiency gains of at least £960 million by 2007-08.[139] In October 2004, the Secretary of State said that he expected in early 2005 to be able to give the Committee details of how the 30,000 target reduction would fit across DWP.[140] Regrettably, final decisions on the contribution from different parts of DWP had still not been announced by the time that this report was written.

65. Following the Committee's recommendation in its report into the performance of the Child Support Agency,[141] the Secretary of State announced that there would be 'no major reduction in frontline CSA staff numbers until the new computer system is working effectively'.[142] On 2 February 2005, he told the Committee that this change would 'be reflected in alterations elsewhere' but that otherwise the share of staff cuts across the Department would be approximately in line with the proportions given in the original figures.[143]

66. In June 2004, it was announced that Pension Centre sites were to be reduced from 29 to 19.[144] Much of the efficiencies to be achieved in the Pension Service are predicated on the implementation of the Pensions Transformation Programme. On 13 January 2005, it was announced that 12 Pension Centres would receive Pensions Transformation Programme (PTP) investment.[145] The remaining eight non-transformation sites would 'continue to conduct pension service business over the next few years' although their future would be kept 'under review' and the Department would 'consider any transfer opportunities' that arose.[146]

67. In January 2005, we were told by DWP that the plan was to reduce the number of staff in the Pension Service to 15,200 by March 2005 and to 14,605 by March 2006.[147] The fact that this is a far more modest reduction than that originally proposed for March 2006 (to 11,300) was said to be due to a decision to phase in the Pensions Transformation Programme more gradually (see below).[148]

68. The longer term aim is to reduce staffing levels to around 8,000. The intention is that staffing levels in the Pension Service will reach this point by 2011/12.[149] A target staff reduction to 2008 had not been announced when the report was agreed. However, the Pension Service told us that Waves 1 and 2 of the Pensions Transformation Programme, if implemented successfully within this period, are expected to enable a reduction to just over 9,000 staff.[150]

The Pensions Transformation Programme

69. The Pension Service expects the Pensions Transformation Programme (PTP) to deliver 'substantial improvements in service …and significantly improved efficiencies'.[151] In January 2005, the Committee visited the Glasgow Pensions Group Solution Centre, which has assisted with the design and testing of PTP. PTP is described as a fundamental transformation of the way the Pension Service delivers its services. It will 'allow customers to transact more of their business at a single point of contact', 'eliminating the need …to provide the same information more than once.'[152]

70. At present, fragmented business processes and lack of communication between legacy IT systems can mean that up to seven contacts are needed with a customer who wishes to claim both Retirement Pension and Pension Credit. Customers have to repeat previously given information, increasing the scope for inaccuracy. Up to three months can be required to train staff in complex processes and systems.

71. Under the new operating model, supported by new IT, first-line customer agent teams would handle both State Pension and Pension Credit, allowing a customer to make claims for both in the same contact.[153] In 50% of cases, this will enable customers to know the amount of their entitlement at the end of their call. There will be no paper-based processing. There are also advantages in terms of improving take-up (see Chapter 6). Specialist teams would be available to handle more difficult claims, with on-screen access to information previously given, so that callers would not have to repeat details.

Phasing in of PTP

72. The Pensions Transformation Programme is being introduced in six stages (Waves 0 to 5), with different phases adding new functionality and benefits:[154]

  • Wave 0 involves pulling forward some of the business processes and efficiencies in PTP that are not reliant on IT.[155]
  • Wave 1a, to be introduced in Dundee, Newcastle and Swansea Pension Centres, is expected to speed up State Pension claims.[156] Between April and September 2006, all 'transformation sites' will receive State Pension and Pension Credit IT that will enable customers to make claims for Retirement Pension and Pension Credit together (Wave 1b). Waves 2a and Waves 2b are expected to complete this process.
  • Funding has not yet been secured for Waves 3 to 5. The Pension Service hopes to secure this 'in SR 2006 or as soon as additional funding becomes available.'[157] Because of this, there is a break in roll-out between Wave 2 and Waves 3-5. The Chief Executive describes these waves as 'just gradually adding richness and functionality to what has been put in waves one and two',[158] although they also appear to present significant opportunities in terms of increasing take-up of a range of benefits (see paragraph 126).

The PTP told us that 85% of the advantages would be in place by the completion of wave 2.

Can DWP meet its 2006 target without compromising service delivery?

73. DWP claims that the March 2006 target of 14,605 posts in the Pension Service will be achieved partly 'as a result of a fall in Pension Credit workloads (a reduction of 2,100 staff)' and partly by 'the initial phase of the Pension Transformation Programme (Wave 0) where savings of 2,350 staff have been identified as a result of restructuring the organisation and improvements in managing existing business processes.'[159] Keith Wylie from the Public and Commercial Services Union told the Committee that PCS had been informed that there would be a 'ramping up' for the Pension Credit introduction period followed by a 'ramping down'.[160] The union felt that some reduction in staffing was 'possible and sustainable'[161] although the successful implementation of new IT was crucial:

"If the two things worked properly then at those levels we could do the service. It might not be the Rolls-Royce service we would want to deliver but at least it would be a decent service."[162]

74. A number of organisations felt that the Pension Service was already experiencing administrative difficulties (see Chapter 4) and could not, therefore, cope with a reduction in staff.[163] PCS said there were already problems with 'backlogs building in the centres', cases and 'important documents being lost, because we have not really got the resources to deliver the service that we are trying to deliver.'[164] The changes to be introduced through the Pensions Transformation Programme, in particular the reduction in processes following the combining of State Pension and Pension Credit processing, should have the effect of reducing error and delay. However, most of these benefits seem likely to be achieved over the longer term (Waves 1b and 2 being phased in from April 2006).

75. Citizens Advice were concerned that there might be difficulty keeping track of claims when processing work is transferred from closing Pension Centres.[165] The manager of the Pension Centre at Blackpool, however, expressed confidence that they could absorb the work being transferred there from Wrexham.[166]

76. The Committee agrees that the changes to business processes, coupled with the likely decline in workloads, should enable the Pension Service to make some fairly significant staff reductions by March 2006, without adversely affecting service. The Committee recommends that, by 1 October 2005, to help increase confidence, the Department prepares and publishes the business case for reducing staff to 14,605 by March 2006, including a plan to deal with weaknesses such as current case backlogs.

Can DWP meet its 2008 target without compromising service delivery?

77. Waves 1 and 2 of the Pensions Transformation Programme are to be delivered over the period to 2008. The Pension Service expects successful implementation of Waves 1 and 2 to enable 85% of the efficiencies projected from PTP to be delivered and to enable a reduction in staffing to just over 9,000.[167] This is a dramatic reduction in staffing levels (55%), compared to the 19,945 employed in the organisation in December 2003.

78. DWP says that the introduction of PTP follows the Department's new IS/IT strategy of avoiding 'the 'big bang' approach'.[168] Instead, new 'front end' systems are phased in over time, while the old 'backend' legacy systems continue to be used.[169] The Committee was told that PTP had been 'realistic about the capacity of the Pension Service to absorb change without excessive disruption to the business.'[170]

79. The recognition of the importance of changes to business processes as new IT is introduced is welcome. The Committee's recent report on the Child Support Agency (CSA) found the 'root cause' of continued problems with the CSA to be a failure on the part of the Department to comprehend the scale of business transformation required.[171] It is therefore encouraging to note that the Pension Service is introducing PTP in staged waves, starting with changes to business processes. Also welcome is the recognition that 'people change management, communication, risk mitigation and contingency planning' is considered to be integral to the process.[172]

80. Although we were told that PTP has 'cushion' periods between waves to allow for slippage,[173] we note that PTP has already been delayed following a decision to rephase IT investment.[174] Furthermore, PTP is dependent on 'a wide variety of internal and external factors' including:

  • The Customer Information System project - a project to develop a central Departmental database of customer information - the due end date for which is February 2007.[175]
  • Policy changes, particularly to support the acceptance of electronic claims forms.[176]

81. We are concerned that if there are difficulties with the implementation of Waves 1 and 2 of PTP, managers will be put under pressure to find cuts in other ways. PCS were concerned that there was pressure to reduce the time spent training staff, although the Chief Executive commented that training would increase in future as the Pensions Transformation Project is brought in, and that the training would aim to help clerks to deal with a wider range of topics.[177] A further concern was that the Local Service would be seen as a 'softer target' for cuts, as the Pension Service would have to prioritise processing benefits.[178]

82. The Pension Service will be required to make very significant reductions in staff by 2008. Much of this is dependent on the successful implementation of the Pensions Transformation Programme, which is in turn dependent on a range of external factors, including other IT projects. Significant uncertainty must, therefore, remain as to whether the planned efficiencies can be achieved without detriment to the quality of service. The Committee recommends that staff reductions are postponed if there is any further delay to implementation of PTP or if it proves unable to deliver the expected efficiencies or if there are signs that the quality of service is deteriorating.

Planning and staff morale

83. Managing the process of change on this scale and to a tight timescale represents a very significant challenge. In Blackpool, the Committee was told that staff felt they had been encouraged to join an innovative service without warning that the jobs might go in the future.[179] Indeed in April 2002, when the Pension Credit Bill was going through Parliament, the Minister for Pensions, said:

"I can only say that the resources are available in spades for the new Department, as the creation of the Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus shows… There has never been a better time and place to work in the public service than there is now at the Department for Work and Pensions, and we intend to maintain good working relationships."[180]

84. Paul Vizard of the Pension Service Trade Union side said that ''Shock' certainly is not too strong a term' to describe the reaction of staff to the situation now facing them.[181] While the unions had expected some reduction in staff following the implementation of Pension Credit, they had expected it to be on a smaller scale and to be dealt with mainly through fixed term contracts.[182]

85. At the time of taking evidence, there was considerable uncertainty about what staff reductions were going to be required and where these cuts would fall. The Committee was told on its visit to Blackpool that, from a staff perspective, the process did not appear planned and there was felt to have been inadequate communication.[183] Union representatives gave the example of Stockport where there were vacancies in the town's benefits processing centre but the local Jobcentre Plus, which was expecting cuts, would not release staff so that they could apply for the jobs.[184] Overall, the trade union side said it was beginning to see evidence of 'destabilisation' within the service, with low morale and staff trying to leave.[185] 2,500 staff had departed voluntarily since April 2004.[186] Paul Vizard told us that:

"With the projected cuts in the longer term we feel that the service will fall over and fail, and not just because of the numbers but also because of the lack of morale amongst the staff and staff trying to get out at every opportunity. That is a big problem now, not in 2008. It is a problem that exists at the present time."[187]

86. The Secretary of State identified one of the big risks of driving through change like this to be 'the effect on staff morale.'[188] He said that the 'odd patch of problems' and the 'odd minor problem in quality of service' would be unavoidable given the numbers of staff being redeployed and retrained.[189] The Department considers that a 30,000 reduction in staff numbers will not be possible entirely from normal staff turnover rates and has therefore secured £50 million in 2004/05 and in 2005/06 to fund voluntary early exit schemes.[190] The Secretary of State said that an agreement had now been reached with the unions about how to go through the efficiency process, avoiding compulsory redundancies.[191] He also told the Committee that the Department had 'tough decisions to make':

"It is a big department with a lot going on and we have to be absolutely sure that we have looked at all eventualities before we put our staff's mind at rest. That is one of the reasons we have got high wastage rates. Once we do this we will have a lower wastage rate because people will be more certain about their future."[192]

87. PCS, on the other hand, were concerned that the 'attrition rate' (staff leaving the service) would 'go through the roof' following 'the next announcement'.[193] There are still eight Pension Centres, not earmarked for transformation activity, whose future is uncertain beyond the next 'few years'.[194]

88. The Committee is extremely concerned about the impact of change on this scale on staff morale, and on the ability of the remaining staff to deliver a quality service to pensioners, particularly if it is the more experienced staff who accept voluntary redundancy (although ultimately, of course, this is a matter for management and unions to negotiate). We urge the Government to make an announcement by 1 June 2005 on the share of cuts across DWP, and that staff at non-transformation Pension Centres should be kept fully informed throughout the process of change.

Impact on the Local Service

89. Changes to the Local Service since the efficiency challenge was set have taken the following form:

  • Staffing levels have been reduced from 3,075 at 31 March 2004 to 2,675 at 1 October 2004.[195]
  • The Local Service clusters have been reorganised, reducing them from 165 to 133 and bringing them more closely into line with local authority boundaries (with the number of Local Service Delivery Managers also reduced to 133).[196]
  • The number of Partnership Liaison Managers has been cut by approximately a third, to 203.[197] DWP says the aim, now partnerships are in place, is to increase the number of Customer Liaison Managers, in order to focus on one-to-one contact.[198]
  • The number of Local Service Information Points (surgeries) has been reduced from 2,566 in April 2004 to 1598 in December 2004[199] and the number of customers seen each month at Information Points has fallen by 10,000 (to 15,802) between April and November 2004.[200]
  • There has been an increase in the number of home visits conducted by Local Service staff, with 48,720 home visits in November 2004 compared to 42,220 in April 2004.[201]

90. One of the aims of DWP's efficiency plan is to enable it to redeploy jobs to front-line roles and services.[202] The Chief Executive told us that staffing reductions to date had been 'more in the management grades than in the face-to-face service.'[203] PCS, on the other hand, described it as a reduction by a third of 'our capacity in the field.'[204] We were told that there would be further reductions following the introduction of Wave 3 of the Pensions Transformation Programme for which the Pension Service hopes to receive funding in SR2006.[205] However, these reductions would be to administrative staff who currently book and schedule appointments.[206] The Chief Executive told us that 'we are not planning on reducing the number of front-line staff.'[207]

91. There was considerable concern among local authorities and customer representative groups that the Local Service would be damaged by staff cuts.[208] Citizens Advice wrote that in view of the 'huge job that remains to be done to increase take-up of Pension Credit, especially amongst harder to reach pensioners, we consider that any cutbacks in the local service would be a breach of faith.'[209] Concerns centred around the reduction in the number of Information Points and apparent changes in the sort of work the Local Service was able to do to encourage take-up.

92. DWP told the Committee that the reduction in the number of Information Points was to enable the emphasis to be placed 'on identifying eligible Pension Credit non-recipients predominantly through direct one to one contact.'[210] It was claimed that decisions to close Information Points were made on the basis of low attendance[211] and in consultation with partners.[212] However, evidence from the voluntary sector suggests such consultation is not always considered adequate.[213] Jim Dickson of Lancashire County Council Welfare Rights Service told us that in Preston and Longridge, which have a population of over 150,000, surgeries had been reduced to one location one day a week.[214] He added that this had had 'quite a severe impact', leaving 'very little choice for people other than having to make very long journeys in order to verify documents' and receive face-to-face advice.[215]

93. The Chief Executive indicated that home visits were now being linked to Direct Payment activity, with resources having to be used for both Pension Credit and Direct Payment conversions up to March 2004.[216] Evidence from organisations working with older people indicated some pressure on home visiting resources. Citizens Advice, for example, reported the case of a couple who had been refused an early home visit to sort out a missed payment of Pension Credit: 'They were told that a visit for this purpose was not a priority, although it clearly was a priority for the couple concerned who had no income'.[217]

94. There was also concern about the impact on the sort of work the Pension Service was able to do. PCS claimed that staff who had previously been involved in high-quality outreach work are now being required to 'cold call' pensioners on the basis of computer generated scans in a drive to meet take-up targets.[218] They told us that even at this very early stage in cuts:

"in a lot of the Joint Team areas the Pension Service partners are walking away and saying, "We cannot possibly deliver that any longer". The good work that has been done in building up those relationships and starting to get the Joint Teams working is patchy across the country. In some areas it has been very successful, but the Pension Service now seem to be saying, "Because we have got to deliver these cuts we can no longer deliver that sort of service. We are not going to try and deliver that level of outreach work any longer". I think that leaves very vulnerable people with nowhere to go at all."[219]

95. A number of organisations were concerned that telephoning customers on the basis of computer-generated scans was not generating 'good returns'.[220] The Chief Executive said she recognised that 'staff do not like it, because they enjoy the face-to-face customer contact, they enjoy that activity, but we have to balance out what delivers in terms of results for us in terms of the take-up as well.'[221]

96. Telephoning may be a quicker way of contacting a large number of customers. However, the National Audit Office's study of benefit take-up by pensioners suggested that local outreach work, though more resource-intensive, would be more successful with 'hard-to-reach' pensioners.[222] The Pension Service has recently appointed someone with the important role, but awful title of, Customer Acquisition Director, who will be looking at how take-up work develops in the future.[223]

97. Evidence from local authorities, voluntary organisations and the trade union side suggests that there is considerable concern about the effect of pressure to achieve efficiencies on the ability of the Local Service to deliver high-quality outreach work. There was also a concern that consultation on how the service was to be delivered had not been adequate. Citizens Advice commented that the Pension Service had a 'long way to go in thinking through what partnership really means at both local and national level.'[224]

98. We welcome the assurance that there will be no further reductions in front-line Local Service staff, but recommend that there should be more consultation with national and local partners on service delivery.

Ensuring the quality of service is maintained across the Pension Service

99. The Gershon review emphasised the importance of 'effective and continuing parliamentary and public accountability systems for the delivery of agreed efficiency targets.'[225] DWP's efficiency target will only be met if savings 'are achieved without detriment to performance' with customers experiencing 'no diminution in the service they receive.'[226] This is to be measured with reference to the Public Service Agreement (PSA) framework and in the Departmental Annual Report. In addition to its targets to increase take-up, the Pension Service has targets for the accuracy of awards and answering of telephone calls. Spending Review 2004 introduced a new target to issue 15.4 million pension forecasts by 2007-08 and undertake 60,000 successful pension traces a year. [227]

100. The Committee does not consider that reporting of progress against the PSA targets, together with the Departmental Annual Report, will give an adequate picture of how the service is developing at this important time. We recommend that DWP establishes a 'standards committee' (including voluntary organisations and local authorities) tasked with producing six-monthly reports on how the Pension Service is proceeding with its programme of efficiencies and the impact this is having on the service it is able to provide.


137   Sir Peter Gershon, CBE, Releasing resources to the front line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, July 2004, p 54 Back

138   Letter from the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP, to the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, Sir Archy Kirkwood, Department for Work and Pensions - Staffing Levels, 10 March 2004 Back

139   Sir Peter Gershon CBE, Releasing resources to the front line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, July 2004, p 54. Staff reductions are expected to amount to £810 million. Letter from the Secretary of State to the Committee, 11 November 2004 Back

140   Work and Pensions Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Departmental Report, HC 1171-I, p 12 Back

141   Work and Pensions Committee, Second Report of Session 2004-05, The Performance of the Child Support Agency, HC 44-I, para 207 Back

142   www.publicfinance.co.uk, 28 January 2005. The announcement was reiterated in the Government's Five Year Strategy for DWP. HM Govt, DWP: Five Year Strategy: Opportunity and security throughout life, Cm 6497, February 2005, p 35 Back

143   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 2 Back

144   HC Deb, 29 June 2004, col 9WS. Derby, Norwich-Baltic House, Nottingham, Wolverhampton, Stockton and Wrexham were to be transferred to Jobcentre Plus; the Appeals Service was to take over Burnley; the Child Support Agency was to take over Plymouth and two other Pension Centres, York and Liverpool, were to stop carrying out DWP business altogether. Back

145   Burnley, Cwmbran, Dundee, Leicester, Motherwell, Seaham, Swansea, Stockport Warrington and Newcastle as well as the International Pension Centre and National Pension Forecasting and Teleclaims Centre at Newcastle. HC Deb, 13 January 2005, col 22WS. Burnley Pension Centre which was to have transferred to The Appeals Service was instead to remain within the Pension Service.  Back

146   HC Deb, 13 January 2005, col 22-23WS Back

147   Ev 117 Back

148   Ibid. Back

149   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 5 Back

150   Ev 230, para 87 Back

151   HM Treasury, 2004 Spending Review: Stability, security and opportunity for all: Investing for Britain's long-term future, Cm 6237, 12 July 2004, p 159 Back

152   Ev 230, para 46 Back

153   See Ev 230, Figures 1 and 2 for further comparison of the previous operating structure with the new operating model. Back

154   See Ev 230, Figure B. Back

155   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 5 Back

156   Ev 230, paras 73 and 84. Back

157   Ev 230, para 86. Back

158   Q 14 Back

159   Ev 117 Back

160   Q 302 Back

161   Q 304 [Vizard] with reference to figures given in Q 299 [Mr Wylie]. Back

162   Q 340 Back

163   For example, Ev 131, Ev 140, Ev 154, Ev 158, Ev 190 and Ev 208.  Back

164   Q 305 Back

165   Ev 131 and Ev 201.  Back

166   Ev 230, para 30 Back

167   Ev 230, para 87 and Figure C. Back

168   Ev 230, para 48 Back

169   Ibid. Back

170   Ev 230, para 84 Back

171   Work and Pensions Committee, Second Report of Session 2004-05, The Performance of the Child Support Agency, HC 44-I, para 41-42 Back

172   Ev 230, para 59 Back

173   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 3 [Ms Cleveland] Back

174   Ev 117 Back

175   HC Deb, 18 January 2005, 910W Back

176   Ev 230, para 59 Back

177   Q 375 Back

178   Q 315 Back

179   Ev 230, para 44 Back

180   Stg Co Deb, Standing Committee A, State Pension Credit Bill [Lords], 16 April 2002, col 64 Back

181   Q 303 Back

182   Q 302 Back

183   Ev 230, paras 42 and 43 Back

184   Ev 230, para 43 Back

185   Q 338 Back

186   Ev 117 Back

187   Q 340 Back

188   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 1 Back

189   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 4 Back

190   Letter to the Committee from DWP, Winter Supplementary Estimates 2004/05, 4 February 2005, p 3  Back

191   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 1 Back

192   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 63 Back

193   Q 305 Back

194   HC Deb, 13 January 2005, col 22WS Back

195   Ev 115 Back

196   Ev 107 Back

197   Ev 114. Although PCS say this does not include an additional third of Partner Liaison Managers that have already left the Service without being replaced (Q313). Back

198   Ev 114 Back

199   Ev 116 Back

200   Ev 122 Back

201   Ev 119 Back

202   Sir Peter Gershon CBE, Releasing resources to the front line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, July 2004, p 54 Back

203   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 27 Back

204   Q 315 Back

205   Ev 230, paras 86 and 87 Back

206   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 28 Back

207   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 28 Back

208   For example, Ev 154, Ev 171 and Ev 196. Back

209   Ev 201. See also Q 15 [Ms Isaacs] Back

210   Ev 116 Back

211   Q 418 Back

212   Ev 116 Back

213   Q 84, Ev 141 and Ev 202-203. Back

214   Q 281 Back

215   Q 281 Back

216   Q 365 Back

217   Ev 203 Back

218   Q 318 Back

219   Q 314 Back

220   Q 235 Back

221   Q 417 Back

222   NAO, Tackling pensioner poverty: Encouraging take-up of entitlements, HC 37, Session 2002-03, 20 November 2002, para 15 Back

223   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (to be published as HC 298-I, 2 February 2005, Q 24 Back

224   Ev 202. See also Q 21. Back

225   Sir Peter Gershon CBE, Releasing resources to the front line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, July 2004, para 4.5 Back

226   DWP, SR 2004 efficiency target Technical Note, 29 October 2004, para 17 Back

227   HM Treasury, 2004 Spending Review: Stability, security and opportunity for all: investing got Britain's long-term future, Cm 6237, 12 July 2004, Box 19.1

 Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 9 March 2005