Select Committee on Work and Pensions Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)

CAROLINE FLINT MP AND MR ADAM SHARPLES

23 JULY 2007

  Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon everybody, welcome to this one-off evidence session with the new Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform. I should just like to offer the Committee's congratulations to you on your appointment. I am sure you are going to enjoy it; you come at a challenging time. The Department published a five-year strategy in 2005. We then got a Green Paper in 2006 on welfare reform followed by a Bill, most of which has not been enacted yet. Why is a Green Paper needed now following on from that?

  Caroline Flint: Because this particular Green Paper is responding to a number of different reports which have come out in the meantime: not exclusively the Freud report but the Leitch skills report; your own report as well which raised a number of issues around how the New Deal works for different groups and in what ways it could be improved; the Harker report on child poverty too. I have only been in the Department a very short time but just taking into account where we are today it seems to me that the challenge we face is that we have had successes—no doubt about that—with the different programmes which have been provided in different ways to help people with disabilities who want to get into work and tackle some of the barriers, but there is more to be done there. We have had success in the New Deal for Lone Parents programme for those particular women who have come forward to take part in it. One of the problems for me, and I hope the Green Paper is going to try in different ways to address this, is that the numbers coming forward are not high enough. Alongside that is this ambition we have to have an 80% employment rate and tackle child poverty. The Secretary of State Peter Hain said last week that we will not be able to meet our child poverty targets unless we support in different ways more lone parents getting into work, not necessarily full time but at least part time to enable them, for their children and themselves, to tackle their poverty whilst they remain on benefits, which benefits on their own will never overcome. Several of those different factors have led to us needing to respond. To be honest with you, a number of the issues in our Green Paper are building on other things which have been said before, hopefully trying to get them into a more coherent way in which we can move forward, whether that is in contracting, whether it is on a different type of New Deal programme, whether it is trying to get to the people who are at the moment inactive and support them into work.

  Q2  Chairman: I am impressed that you have read our Select Committee report which was excellent and far better than Freud, if I may say so.

  Caroline Flint: I have it here and we do mention the Select Committee in the Green Paper as well; I double-checked on that.

  Q3  Chairman: How do you see this fitting in with the previous strategy statements, particularly the five-year plan? Is the five-year plan redundant in the light of events or is it still in there somewhere?

  Caroline Flint: It is not redundant. It is certainly informing this consultation paper. It seems to me in my brief time in the Department that clearly, whether in relation to the five-year plan, whether in relation to the Building on New Deal strategy, BoND, some of the things people are trying to address are still there within the Green Paper. Do we have enough flexibility? Do we have too many titles for things under different names, New Deal for Young People, New Deal for Older Workers and all those which flexible New Deal is trying somehow to streamline? Do we have the balance right between what Jobcentre Plus can provide and do so admirably and what is out there in terms of the private and voluntary sector? Are we getting value for money out of our contracts currently with private, public and voluntary sector providers? Can that be improved? How do we get the actual throughput of more people to access the services there are? I was struck, particularly with lone parents, just as an MP but also in recent weeks being out at a couple of Jobcentres and asking people this question, how lone parents who take part seem very happy with the service which is being provided and have been supported in all sorts of ways, if not into work certainly with a whole number of other things which have improved their self-confidence, which is an important part of all this. We know that is the case but the voluntary schemes are not bringing the people forward at the moment and that is where we want to address some of the conditionality, not as a stick but to get better engagement amongst those groups. Likewise with the City Strategy work: we have 15 under way at the moment and 13 have been signed off in terms of their business plans. Reflected in the Green Paper is the understanding that for some areas great flexibility and devolution of decision making could work well, particularly for ethnic minority groups but also others for whom a national response is not really enough to provide the sort of understanding, identification and local development of schemes which may bring better outcomes. For me it is about what works and whether it gets us where we need to be, which is supporting more people into employment. Adam was around when the five-year strategy was being put together.

  Mr Sharples: The consistent theme through all the documents has been full employment. The five-year strategy set out the ambition of getting employment up to 80% and the two Green Papers since then have explored the policies which will be most likely to get us there. The Green Paper last year focused very much on the sick and disabled and took us to the commitment to extend the pathways programme to the whole country and also provided the basis for legislation to introduce the Employment and Support Allowance. Now we have that legislation in place we are moving to implementation and this Green Paper moves on to focus particularly on lone parents and on the jobseekers, the unemployed. There is a very strong common theme between all the documents and I certainly would not say that the original five-year strategy was redundant; it was one of the cornerstones for the strategy we have been developing since then.

  Q4  Chairman: Freud made great play on the need to reform the benefit system itself and ultimately he had this goal or dream of the single working age benefit. He made a number of recommendations, none of which has been carried forward into the Green Paper. Does that mean they have been dropped, they are not for today, they do not command support? What is the general feel?

  Caroline Flint: I would not suggest that they are dropped. Certainly it would be fair to say that both Freud's report and the IPPR's recent report on a single benefit system as well—and you are also currently undertaking an inquiry which we shall be interested in looking at—identify how helpful it could be to simplify. I know the IPPR report I was looking at over the weekend in relation to having a core benefit and then add-ons depending on particular needs, which could be health or disability issues or others, questioned whether we can do this, whether solving one problem could present another set of problems. As soon as you add on you are creating another system in itself. What threshold do you set when you are unifying benefits in such a way that you get the threshold right, for example Jobseeker's allowance and other benefits? As with anything, when you simplify you can end up with losers and gainers and who is going to lose on that? If nobody is going to lose, where is the money to put it at a higher threshold? We are not ruling it out but we just think we need to have some more time to consider some of this and to consider some of the recent developments. The Employment and Support Allowance in and of itself is a different benefit in the sense of a different way forward and the support which goes with it. The changes we will have from next year in relation to lone parents going onto Jobseeker's Allowance when their youngest child is 12 is a step change. In some respect, as well as Income Support, ESA, Jobseeker's Allowance, the other factor which plays into this—which I have to say I am not an expert on at the moment but which is important—is where those other benefits such as access to housing benefit support, access to council tax reduction benefits and other sorts of benefits play into this as well. We have not set our face against it but we would like to explore further just how this might happen and also where the current changes we are making might flow into something like that in the future, if that is possible.

  Q5  Chairman: You mentioned the Employment and Support Allowance. When will you know the value of the support element?

  Caroline Flint: Later in the year or possibly early next year.

  Mr Sharples: The early part of next year is the last point at which the process can be started to set the allowance.

  Q6  Miss Begg: You mentioned the New Deal. We have asked every minister in front of us whether BoND was still alive and kicking. They have always said it was but we have never found very much evidence of any life whatsoever. I was interested to hear you say that BoND is still about and it is in the Green Paper. Is it in the same form as you envisaged in the Green Paper or is it in the same form as the original BoND or will this be slightly different from the BoND which we were always promised but we never got?

  Caroline Flint: Some of the principles of BoND are present in the flexible New Deal. Aspects of opportunities to customise can exist in relation to the City Strategy, more localised programmes which meet the needs of the groups we are most trying to reach, but that varies enormously. Within ethnic minorities, looking at the statistics of those out of work amongst the Pakistani and Bangladeshi community, I have to say their needs stand out starkly compared with other ethnic minority groups. The flexibility, the customisation there, that part of BoND is already being taken forward as part of the City Strategy. We have 15 City Strategy partnerships on the books with 13 of them having their business cases signed off; two to go in London which I hope are going to get resolved sooner rather than later. Also the flexible New Deal will allow personal advisers and local providers to have a bit more flexibility about how they approach the needs of the clients they are actually dealing with. That again was something which was recognised as part of BoND that was a good way forward. In terms of some differences, in terms of the JSA and the flexible New Deal, alongside flexibility support that can be defined by the person sitting in front of you, which is to be welcome, there is clearly a much more structured gateway in terms of something for something in return for some of these personalised services, what we expect from the individual in terms of their contribution. There are various gateways at three months, six months and then 12 months but alongside that goes a more clearly defined expression of what we expect from that individual, which was not so much the case, from what I understand, with Building on New Deal, which was to apply across the piece for all groups. Pathways to Work is separate from those on JSA, those who will be in receipt of the Employment Support Allowance. In many respects that also has the principles of BoND in it in terms of the sort of support which might be possible, some flexibility within, that but also trying to look at how we have a range of providers who can provide the specialist services that individuals need, which can vary enormously from one individual to another.

  Q7  Miss Begg: Can I be clear? The new flexible personalised New Deal will only come into play after 12 months. You talked there about different gateways. Will there be some allowance for flexibility before the 12-month cut-off? The reason why I ask that is that, speaking to the people who work in the Jobcentre Plus in Aberdeen, they say that the one thing which would make their life much easier in getting people into work is if they could have a flexibility outwith the quite rigid New Deals which already exist. You can correct me if I am wrong, but what I gather from the Green Paper is that the 12 months and stage four, which is the flexible New Deal, is only going to be delivered by the voluntary and private sectors not by Jobcentre Plus. Will there be flexibility up to that point? Am I right in assuming that after the 12 months it will only be the private and voluntary sector which will be involved and not the public sector?

  Caroline Flint: We have not made it clear; I will make it clear. At the 12-month stage there are options for the private/voluntary sector but also the public sector to compete for some of the programmes, to develop and provide some of the programmes. It is not exclusively the private/voluntary sector. Before we get to the 12-month stage there is stage one up to three months, stage two to six months; six months is the gateway period. My understanding, and this is part of the consultation over the 15 weeks ahead of us, is that that is where there is also an opportunity for advisers to engage with what that person does need to refresh. Part of what it would provide at the very first stage, which is welcome, is that there should be an initial skills assessment in that first three-month period and therefore a greater link with those of our colleagues working through the Learning and Skills Councils, for example to identify earlier on what might be needed. Obviously we do not want to end up with a situation, as we know thankfully that an awful lot of people who go onto Jobseeker's Allowance go on it and come off it of their own accord, where we throw money at a situation which does not require it. There will be closer alignment in terms of employability and skills check at that first three months with the option at the gateway stage of six months to ratchet that up in terms of looking for some particular support. The Secretary of State gave a statement to the House last week and we are interested in people's views on this. There will be flexibility over the 12-month period as to whether other support, either private/voluntary or public sector, should come in earlier and that could be because someone has been round the system a few times, maybe gone into work but not for a very long period of time and then they come back into the JSA regime. We need to be aware of that revolving door as much as job entry when tackling the situation, looking at why, having done all the work for someone, they were not retained in work and what went wrong there. For others who might have specific needs really an opportunity for a judgment to say we want to bring in some providers much earlier in the process. We are interested in views on that to define that more. The point about the whole programme is to try, within resources, to manage cohorts of people who come in and how best to put the resources. Once you get into the providers and more intensive work then it becomes more expensive. How to manage that and judge that is part of this gateway process but with sufficient flexibility I would hope that if it is totally obvious a person has a particular need which can be addressed earlier then you do not want to wait 12 months to try to address that.

  Q8  Miss Begg: You talked about retention and the Green Paper mentions retention and progression in work and I raised the question with the Secretary of State and a statement was made in the chamber, but there are no questions in the document to explore the issue. How is progression and retention going to be built into the new personalised programme?

  Caroline Flint: That is a good question and we should maybe have had a question in there on that. One thing we would be interested in hearing from you and others about is, for example, the employer partnerships which we are developing as part of the Green Paper work. Employer partnership already exist but the LEPs, the Local Employment Partnerships, want to try to effect a step change and within that we ourselves have a target of 250,000 jobs which we feel could provide real opportunities for people who are long-term claimants. Within that, one of the areas we will be interested in is about how to make sure that is done in such a way that there is a retention element for those people going to those jobs. It is why we are linking up not just with a jobs pledge but a skills pledge as well. That is again an important part of supporting people to retain a job they have gone for. The other side we are thinking about is the contract side. What outcomes do we want in terms of the contracts which will be developed? Part of the outcomes we want are not just job entry but where we should be in terms of retention for those people who go into jobs and how we do actually provide the framework to incentivise that but also assess that and get value for money. Those are some of the areas we are exploring as well as markers which might be appropriate to show our success rate for people staying on in work. We have more of a focus on that area now. Certainly, having sat down in my first session with colleagues from Jobcentre Plus, looking at their performance, part of the work on that side has been much more to look not just at someone signing up for a job but job outcomes and holding them too. We would be interested in views on that particular aspect.

  Q9  Miss Begg: There are two elements to retention: there is the revolving door with someone who never really gets into a proper job or is not able to sustain a job; but in terms of people with a mental health problem it is retention of the job they already have. I know the Green Paper does not in general deal with people with disabilities and concentrates more on the unemployed and lone parents, but there is an issue of retention in there. I do not believe it has ever been properly tackled and it has been quite a difficult one to do, so that is something I hope you will look at in more detail.

  Caroline Flint: With my old public health hat on I have to say that I warmly receive those words. There is some work between DWP and the Department of Health on health and wellbeing and there are various employer/stakeholder forums—I have attended a few—to talk about this issue around occupational health, how better partnerships can support people. There is a Treasury review into issues around those who have mental health conditions but who work too. That is an area which we need to explore about where DWP as a Department plays a role but other departments play a role in that too.

  Q10  Miss Begg: That is good news from my point of view. What is going to happen to existing New Deals and Employment Zones? Are they going to be phased out and, if so, over what timescale?

  Caroline Flint: I certainly think that we should make sure that if we are moving to the flexible New Deal we are clear with everybody about what is changing. As part of the flexible New Deal the New Deal for the 18 to 24s and the ones for the over 25s will go and become the new flexible New Deal. We have to do some sorting out as a Department of the terminology we use. There is a host of different schemes and over the months ahead, particularly during this consultation period, it would be very nice to come out at the end with something very clear about Pathways to Work, the flexible New Deal, just where they fit in. With the Employment Zones, in many respects it would seem to me at this stage that we need to look at where the city strategies fit within that. In many respects my understanding is that the city strategies in some areas overlap with where the Employment Zones are anyway because they are in some of the most difficult areas in terms of recruitment into employment for different groups. I would hope, as part of our simplification process, to come out of this somehow with something which is clearer so people do not have ten New Deals in their head when they are trying to navigate their way through.

  Mr Sharples: That is exactly right. Part of the objective here is to rationalise and simplify, to make the offer more uniform across the country and to give that extra flexibility for advisers to work with individuals. The idea is that the new flexible New Deal will replace the two mandatory New Deals, the young people of 25-plus and in time the Employment Zones, although that will take a little bit longer, and the private-sector-led New Deals. All four of those programmes will be wrapped up into the new programme.

  Q11  Miss Begg: Will it be your job as minister to make sure that rationalisation happens but also makes sense and there are no gaps left and no overlaps?

  Caroline Flint: I hope so. I hope by rationalising them, as well as getting better outcomes you can get better value for money as well and better communication, not just with those who want to access the different services but also the wider public, about what we are doing. In many respects we are doing a very good job, but it is sometimes quite confusing for the public to realise what we are doing because, if they are not directly part of it, all of these different labels get lost in translation.

  Q12  Miss Begg: Do you foresee then that the real aim is that it is almost irrelevant as to why someone is out of a job after 12 months, but after 12 months they will get a personalised, flexible approach to getting them a job, regardless of their background and the reason why they do not have a job? At the moment you have to fit into a category. You have to be under-25 or over 50 or a lone parent; you have to have a label.

  Caroline Flint: At the same time, without losing sight of the need to have something much more personalised to the individual, understanding the individual and, I have to say, understanding not just the individual but the family context in which they find themselves as well, because that is very important here, we have to try to avoid different titles all the time for different groups. If we could find the right way through that and the right language to describe that without people feeling we are going to treat everyone the same—because that is certainly not what we are trying to do—that would be good.

  Mr Sharples: There will still be a difference between different benefit regimes and the flexible New Deal is essentially a New Deal for people who are on Jobseeker's Allowance. The reason for having a scheme for people on Jobseeker's Allowance is that it has much higher levels of conditionality; to receive the benefit you have to demonstrate you are available for work and actively seeking work. There are mandatory requirements and participation in the flexible New Deal will be a mandatory requirement for people on Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Q13  Mrs Humble: May I follow on from your answer to Anne's question about whether or not Jobcentre Plus staff will be involved after that 12-month period or whether it will be exclusively the private and voluntary sector? You said yes, there was a role for the public sector in this. As the Select Committee goes around the country and visits various Jobcentres one of the things which always impresses me is that members of staff want to be actively engaged in this process and come up with their own ideas. If they have a complaint, it is that they do not have the flexibility that some of the private and voluntary sector organisations to whom you contract services have. I am reassured when you say that there will be a role for Jobcentre Plus post the 12-month period but to what extent are you consulting staff about the opportunities for them in this new process and listening to what they have to say from their own experience about developing a more personalised service? Part of the enthusiasm was actually the Government inventing New Deal. For so many people who had worked in a system where the claimant was behind a screen and all of a sudden they were talking to them as a whole individual, they really enjoyed that and they just want more of it. Are you talking to them and consulting with them about the opportunities they might have and what they might add to this debate?

  Caroline Flint: I certainly hope we are talking to them. In the couple of weeks I have been in the job I have visited two Jobcentres Plus myself; I also went to our summer school which was aimed at people working in our Jobcentres Plus. It is a school which is run as part of a staff development engagement. My session was on some of the proposals which are in the Green Paper and questions came up about input and what have you. I am happy to go away and look more at this. What is important here is essentially that with our Green Paper proposals, given some flexibility, the Jobcentres Plus are in the driving seat in terms of that first 12 months of engagement with the people who come through onto Jobseeker's Allowance. In that sense they have opportunities at different points in those 12 months. Some of our Jobcentres Plus in the City Strategy areas are in partnership with a whole number of different organisations locally. That is another aspect to this: the partnership which goes on at a local level with the local authority employers but also children's centres, health importantly too. If I overlay the map of health inequalities against the people we are most trying to support into work, they would often be the same people. It seems to me that there are real opportunities here for those working in our Jobcentres in partnership with others to be in that driving seat for those 12 months. It is recognised though and this is not new that already we have a number of different organisations large and small in different ways who are providing services which have been particularly developed because of the needs of the client group: people who have drug addiction problems or any addiction problems; support for people who have various health and disability condition which can be better provided by another organisation or group. There is a real opportunity here. I hope that the flexible New Deal can bring together some of the very best we have had in the other New Deal programmes and allow, whilst trying to have a quality assurance level, the sort of flexibility you are indicating and job satisfaction for the staff at a local level. Organisations always have to be mindful about just what are the opportunities for the frontline people to put in their ideas and, importantly, that they are listened to. If they do not work you go back and say it is not going to work and why; if they do work, see how you can share that.

  Q14  Michael Jabez Foster: I should like to ask you a few questions about the Local Employment Partnerships. This was something that our now Prime Minister announced in the Budget Statement 2007 and the Green Paper picks up on it when it says "We will create a new `Jobs Pledge' under which we are aiming for major employers, in both private and public sectors, to offer a quarter of a million job opportunities". What do you define as a job opportunity? Is it an opportunity for an interview? Is it an actual vacancy? Does it mean a short-term placement? What does it mean?

  Caroline Flint: The sort of areas we have been exploring are things like committing to work trials with a guaranteed job at the end if the individual proves suitable and they are ready to take the job—which might not be the case for everyone; the work trial might be important in itself but they might not be ready; looking at how we can arrange subsidised work trials so that we can be clear that there is a proper match for the job before they commit themselves. Sometimes it would be fair to say that we have put people on courses and they have never experienced the workplace that the course is attuned to. There can be a world of difference between doing a course in theory and then going out there into the workplace and doing it and suddenly realising that maybe retailing is not for them, not what they really wanted to do; trying to get the benefit on that. We are also looking, where we do secure someone a job—and when I say "secure someone a job", the individual secures the job for themselves through our support and the employer recognises the support they need to provide as well—at how we might develop ongoing mentoring for that individual to make sure that the job becomes something sustainable, going back to Anne's point about retention. The other area we are also looking at is the job application process to see whether we can develop some more inclusive recruitment practice. We do have this figure of 250,000 jobs that we are aiming to identify and at this stage we are hoping that they will lead to jobs being filled. We know the jobs are there—10,000 vacancies a day come through our Jobcentres Plus and there are 600,000 vacancies at any given time—but if we are going to make it a reality and sustainable we have to be realistic about the obstacles to people taking up those jobs and look at some excellent schemes which are around and how they have proved to be successful. Last week Carillion in Wolverhampton signed up to over 5,000 jobs which they are looking to identify within their organisation they will be particularly earmarked for those people who are on our books whom we want to give a fairer crack to see whether we can get them into work. We are looking for real commitment here but recognising that there are some particular different levels of support, not just before people go into work but whilst they are in work, which are going to make it a reality.

  Q15  Michael Jabez Foster: Do you know what the number is to date? How many of that 250,000 have been identified?

  Mr Sharples: I believe it is of the order of 10,000 but it is changing day by day as Jobcentres Plus sign up new employers who make these commitments.

  Q16  Michael Jabez Foster: So it is early days.

  Caroline Flint: It is early days.

  Q17  Michael Jabez Foster: However, 250,000 from 10,000 is quite a long way to go yet.

  Caroline Flint: It certainly is.

  Q18  Michael Jabez Foster: What I would also ask about is the nature of these jobs. You say public and private but in the main the private sector tends to be the retail trade which of itself, research suggests, means short-term jobs. Is there any way of ensuring that that can be sustainable, if it is in that particular trade?

  Caroline Flint: Of the 37 employers who have so far committed themselves to the local partnerships 11 are in the retail sector. I just wanted to say that because we have retail 11, hospitality six companies, security four companies, banking and finance three companies signed up. I am happy to provide the Committee with the names of these companies as well. In the public sector Somerset County Council are the only one at the moment who have signed up so full marks to Somerset County Council but we would like to see more coming from the public sector. On transport we have three organisations; contact centres one; facilities management four; logistics two and the others include Bird's Eye and Diageo as a group. The retail sector represents roughly less than one third of the employment partners we have. We are looking for diversity here in terms of the spread and the range, but your point is well made. Part of the issue of retention is how well the pre-employment support is going to be and that is where work trials are very important, ongoing employee mentoring as well and support; in signing up to this partnership a recognition by the companies who are signing up of how important it is not only to have the chief executives of organisations committed to this but the local people who are doing the hiring at a local level. That is where the partnerships are, that is going to be the delivery side of it: store managers, people who are managing these different workplaces. If it is really going to work it is the Local Employment Partnership with very strong direction corporately from these companies that is going to make the difference, so that it is not just people going in, coming out again and so forth. Having said that, what I would say is that all these issues were discussed, albeit briefly, at the breakfast we had the other week, including the issues around delivery on the ground by the local people who are doing the hiring, working in partnership with JCP and others. It is something we are going to be working on over this consultation period to see how we need to flesh that out.

  Q19  Michael Jabez Foster: Can I ask you to say a little more about the public sector possibilities? With a reducing labour force, particularly in DWP and elsewhere, there is no room for recruitment there. When I was a lad, Ron, who was not quite like everyone else, worked in Parks and Gardens. I still look back at those days when society, through their local councils and organisations, actually did find homes and work for people who were not quite able to make the market. Is it not a shame that that possibility does not exist any more? With all the support in the world you need sympathetic employers. Is it ever possible to ask the private sector to be that sympathetic?

  Caroline Flint: The proof is in what happens. There are some examples of where in some respects the private sector occasionally, with its human resource policies, can do better than the public sector and vice-versa. There is no sense that the private sector cannot deliver in these areas and there are often lessons which both can learn from each other. In terms of the public sector, yes there have been changes in our workforce in Jobcentre Plus, as there have been changes in other parts of the public sector. The Department of Health is a case in point on that. What we should be aware of is that whilst in some cases there have been reductions in numbers, in other areas public sector jobs have grown or they have changed. Within that situation there is still the possibility for good public sector employers to think about where they reach in terms of their employment opportunities beyond what often is a very small pool. I used to work in local government for a number of years and I worked in Lambeth. I remember working for the direct labour organisation many years ago and it used to be the case that effectively there was a cartel of families who ended up getting the jobs in terms of the trades; essentially white working class families. If you know Lambeth, you know the ethnic diversity and often those from a black Afro-Caribbean background did not get a look-in. They had to look at their employment possibilities, for example no longer have just word of mouth recruitment but open recruitment policies to give other groups a fair crack in order to break that. They did do that, to be fair, and the employment profile of Lambeth is probably very different to when I worked there a long time ago. It is engaging in some of these issues which is very important. Part of the City Strategy work, where some of the pathfinders are private sector led, some are being led by the Jobcentre Plus, others are being led by the local authority, is that all of them have to address who is missing out on work opportunities; it gives rights and responsibilities. We will give you more rights to decide what you are going to provide and the flexibility but you have a responsibility to reach into those groups who are currently excluded. It is going to be interesting to see how that can deliver, given that we have also given them a stretched target on top of the flexibilities.


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 30 October 2007