Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
PHIL HOPE
MP, TOM LEVITT
MP AND JONATHAN
LINDLEY
29 JUNE 2009
Q180 Chairman: Okay. We were told
that other regional development agencies have that sort of expertise
embedded within a member of their specific boards. Basically,
if it's good enough, or deemed appropriate enough for other RDAs,
why is—I'm not saying emda is an exception, but perhaps
it is an exception. If that is the case, is that something that
ought to be looked at?
Phil Hope: Again, this is a matter
for emda, rather than me, to say who it should have on
its board, but you make—
Chairman: Yes, but we are taking evidence
off you. We're interested in your view. We will have the opportunity
to talk formally again, and informally to emda, about this
issue and perhaps other issues. So I am interested—I think
we are interested—in what your take is on it.
Phil Hope: My take is that it
is very important that emda has a very open, transparent
and purposeful engagement with the sector. The sector is diverse
and covers a whole range of issues in terms of the way it goes
about developing its strategy. I also think it needs to make sure
that sustainability and sustainable development is a mainstream,
embedded-across-the-piece part of everything that they can see
that they are doing—in the same way as you might be rural-proofing
future strategies—so making sure that sustainable development
is integrated throughout. I don't have a particular view as to
whether a particular person is appointed to represent that sector's
interest. I can see advantages. I can also see disadvantages.
If there was good practice, perhaps people could examine that
and just see what works and what doesn't. The outcome is what
really matters and what matters is an effective engagement as
we develop the regional strategy for the future, and that it is
mainstreamed and embedded throughout what that strategy contains.
Chairman: Tom, you wanted to come in.
Perhaps you have a view.
Tom Levitt: I just wanted to put
it in the context of the fact that the East Midlands was the first
region to publish a sustainability strategy. We published it earlier
this year, when Hilary Benn came to Long Eaton to launch it. It's
not just about sustainability in environmental terms; it is also
about the issue of adaptation to climate change. That process
originally grew out of the Nottingham partnership of local authorities
coming together to mainstream sustainability into the way they
operate. It developed into this regional paper, the first regional
strategy of its type to be published, with every local authority
in the region—and emda—all signed up to it.
So there isn't a problem getting the issue of sustainability up
high on the agenda and it is one of Phil's priorities.
Q181 Chairman: You say that there
isn't a problem, but we've got specific evidence from organisations
that they see it as a problem. I'd say it no stronger than that.
Phil Hope: I understand that point,
Chair, and I just wanted to say that maybe, historically, there
have been concerns that the environmental lobby haven't felt heard
in the past. That is why the thinking about the future of the
regional strategy for the future, in which the first discussion
is going to be about the process and making sure that those organisations
feel they do have a voice in the development of the strategy,
is so important. That is what the debate is going to be about
this week, as we take the integrated strategy for the future forward.
Chairman: Okay, well, we'll watch this
space.
Q182 Judy Mallaber: I put it to
you that maybe the reason that emda was a bit in advance
on environmental things was that, by accident, it originally had
one of our leading environmentalists, Martin Doughty, on the board.
Maybe we would not have developed the index of sustainable economic
well-being, and this work, if we hadn't had an expert in that
area on the board. I'll just leave that with you as a thought.
You were talking about consultation. I am interested in your view
on how well you think emda does in consulting and reaching
out and talking to people—this broader network that you're
talking about—other than those who are formally on its board.
That raised another specific issue I wanted to raise with you.
Phil Hope: I know that there have
been criticisms of emda's consultation. I think it has
listened to those criticisms and, in thinking about the future,
is thinking about ways of engaging with a very diverse sector.
emda, like the leaders' forum, for example, has a real
challenge ahead in terms of the wide variety of organisations
that will have an interest in the future of the new integrated
regional strategy. When you think of the planning issues and so
on, there is a huge number of organisations, whether it is from
the environmental lobby—those people who are opposed to
environmental change—or those people who support it: businesses
and so on. The question is not, "Is there a one-size-fits-all
solution to this?" which I don't think there is. The question
is, can emda develop processes of consultation and engagement
in the future in which the various views on a whole range of issues
can be heard properly, an overview taken and then difficult decisions
made about the right way forward for the future? That, I think,
is the critical part of where we need to go from now on. I do
hope that their forum, where they are discussing specifically
what those processes might look like—because these people
will never necessarily all agree with each other, but I think
it's absolutely right that they have a real, strong opportunity
to have their point of view heard, their evidence submitted, that
proper evaluation and then conclusions reached based on evidence
about what's best for the region. That, I think, is where we want
to arrive at.
Chairman: Can we move on to have a look
at the issue of the regional economic strategy?
Q183 Judy Mallaber: The question
that arises from what we have just been saying goes on into the
economic strategy. One criticism that we had when we had the business
sector and the trade unions with us at the same time is that although
you have trade unionists on the board, the union representatives
there certainly thought that it wasn't just a case of consultation.
They have a huge amount of intelligence about what is happening
in business and where problems are arising in individual businesses
that they often have before it comes to the attention of GOEM
or emda. Is that something that you have discussed with
them—how they can take that kind of intelligence into account
in terms of us dealing with the credit crunch and the economic
difficulties that we have at present?
Phil Hope: There are two things.
First, as Regional Minister, I meet with the trade unions—both
the regional TUC and individual unions—on particular concerns,
and I think that that's extraordinarily helpful to me. As well
as having a regional TUC representative, as it were, on the regional
economic cabinet, we take opportunities to think about and respond
to particular issues as and when they arise. The rapid response
service, for example, when a particular company experiences large
numbers of redundancies, has been an absolutely critical part
of the partnership working between the trade union movement, the
business concern—Jobcentre Plus, for example—and,
indeed, the Learning and Skills Council so that when something
like that unfortunately happens, a service is put in place. Of
course, a particular company can choose not to access that service,
and I know that there have been difficulties with that in some
cases, but broadly speaking, most businesses welcome the extra
service, response and support they get when they're going through
that difficult process of having to lose a number of jobs, and
therefore the individual support that is given to individuals
on retraining, redeployment and so on to help that business, and
indeed to get as far upstream of that decision as possible, so
that the business might make different choices in terms of its
business decisions, which might mean that fewer redundancies are
required when those things happen. So I think they have put in
place a good package and a good partnership working when those
events happen. Indeed, the trade unions—with their tendrils,
as it were, sensitively picking up these issues and feeding into
that—have been an important part of the process.
Q184 Judy Mallaber: In the broader
picture, what input did you have into the development of the regional
economic strategy?
Phil Hope: Me personally?
Judy Mallaber: Yes, as a Minister.
Phil Hope: Well, Regional Ministers
didn't exist when the first regional economic strategies were
produced, so I didn't have any input at all other than as a local
MP with my own views. In terms of the development of the new integrated
regime strategy, I'm concerned to ensure that there's as comprehensive
a process as possible that really does take into account the views
of all the stakeholders in the region and a proper debate on the
way forward. The original regional economic strategy was well-written
and well-researched and had the flexibilities in it to respond
to the changing circumstances, so when the economic downturn arrived,
it was not in a bad place as a regional economic strategy, but
those were its priorities for the future in the first place. But,
of course, since then, I think emda have been very good
at responding to those particular concerns: for example, Business
Link turning away from helping businesses to think about how to
deal with problems of growth to providing services to help individuals
and businesses cope with shrinking demand and deal with turnover
and how they managed their finances, cash flow and so on. The
thrive and survive workshops that emda sponsored have now
been taken up nationally, I understand. So something that emda
developed as a regional response has been seen as an example of
good practice. The original regional economic strategy was well
founded and was the right way forward. There has been a response
here and now to the current economic pressures to respond to that
and to develop and amend some of the priorities within that in
the way that the organisation has worked. Now, of course, we need
a new integrated strategy for the future that takes into account
what has been going on in the economy and gets us ready for the
upturn and the new industries—low-carbon technology and
so on. Our region is a good place, in terms of the research base
and companies we have, to respond very positively to that new
economic landscape we are entering into.
Q185 Judy Mallaber: What is the
role of the Government office in influencing development of the
strategy and the issues that Phil has been talking about in terms
of economic circumstances?
Jonathan Lindley: Our role in
the current economic strategy was, first of all, to make sure
that one was being developed and to make a judgment on behalf
of Government as to whether the evidence that it was considering
was full and proper. If you like, it was a sort of managerial
oversight of the process, to ensure that it was happening and
would generate a substantial strategy that was challengeable,
representative and would help the region to develop going forward.
Our role as we move into the new integrated strategy is again
to make sure that the process happens—and that is not without
difficulty sometimes. We will also make sure, on behalf of Government,
that the right stakeholder consultation and involvement is taking
place, so that it isn't simply the leaders' board, the emda
board or the joint board strategy—that it is the region's
economic strategy. If we have concerns that stakeholder involvement
from the environmental lobby or sector, for example, which you
raised, has not been properly taken into account, we would advise
the Secretary of State not to sign it off. I do not believe that
we will get to that position because we are working very well
with all the stakeholders to ensure that we will get satisfactory
arrangements.
Q186 Judy Mallaber: I am slightly
puzzled by what is happening with sub-strategic partnerships and
why we keep turning structures upside-down. We will come back
to some of that on accountability. May I pick that up here, because
I have had a great deal of help with some of my local businesses
from one of the people employed by the sub-strategic partnership
to work with businesses. We have got advice and got Ministers
involved in getting the banks off the backs of some of our local
companies. I am not clear what is happening to sub-strategic partnerships
and how it ties in to the new structures. Could you explain?
Jonathan Lindley: They're evolving.
The sub-regional partnerships are currently given money by the
development agency and we believe that will continue to happen.
It has happened now throughout the region. It did not happen originally
because there were some questions about how strongly they were
performing. They are now happening across the region and the intention
is for that to continue, as I understand it. However, the Bill
has not yet become enacted, so anything could still happen between
now and enactment.
Q187 Judy Mallaber: So we're not
expecting when that Bill comes through for it to lead to substantial
changes, because we are talking about putting authorities on economic
prosperity boards. Is that just going to be the current sub-strategic
partnerships on their current boards but just for the statutory
function? How would that work?
Jonathan Lindley: That is still
for the region to determine. There isn't an expectation that they
will simply stop being called sub-regional partnerships and start
being called economic prosperity boards. They will have to be
fit for their new purpose. However, some of them could be the
same. There is not the assumption that they will either be the
same or be different.
Q188 Judy Mallaber: Is there some
indication that they have not been working well or that they have
been working well?
Jonathan Lindley: No, I think
it is an indication that the world is a changing place and that
the new arrangements that integrate the strategic planning, both
spatially and economically, will require a slightly different
approach and so may require slightly different people sub-regionally.
Q189 Judy Mallaber: Phil, you
have highlighted a question about skills and learning, which obviously
is an absolutely critical factor. This is another one where there
are interesting structural issues. Originally, DIUS was not one
of the sponsorship Departments of Government offices. Now I assume
it is integrated because it is in BIS. Whether that has come in
accidentally or on purpose, I am not clear. We also have the LSC
operating separately, yet emda clearly has an important
function in relation to ensuring that we develop our skills. How
do you see those diverse organisations having to deal with this
area working together? How does it affect our ability to focus
on improving skills when we have not had DIUS involved originally
and we have the LSC working separately?
Phil Hope: I speak as a former
skills Minister and I recognise the complexities of the skills
architecture and the wiring, both in terms of the flow of funding
and in terms of determining how you identify which skills are
relevant for the future and how you ensure you raise skill levels
across the board in the region. We have the problem of being,
relatively speaking, a low-skill region. There is absolutely no
question about it: all the partners—public sector employers,
private sector employers and the third sector—have to work
together in terms of their work forces to upskill the work force
for the future, tapping into the resources that are available
through the Learning and Skills Council, but also being guided
by some of the economic priorities and the sector priorities that
the regional economic strategy and the new integrated regional
strategy will identify. Getting that mix right is complicated
at national, regional and local levels. It requires that those
partners with responsibility for various parts of the skills system
work together so that if an ordinary business, let us say, wants
to be able to upskill its work force, it should be able just to
tap into a very simple, straightforward system of getting the
resource it needs and maybe putting some resource of its own in
as well, recognising the benefits, to raise the skills of its
work force. Part of that will involve an analysis of its training
needs as a company. Of course, there are training needs in one
setting and then the economic situation changes and it has to
re-equip or think through new products that it has to make that
will require new skills. The combination—it is complicated—is
about trying to put together the right mix of support and help
for a business so that it can just get the resource and help it
needs and the analysis it needs of what it is as a business. That
may start off presenting itself as a training needs analysis and
end up as a capital funding problem. A business needs to be able
to walk through a single doorway—which is what Business
Link is all about—to ensure that it gets access to the right
resources for it as a business, for its future and its development.
Behind that doorway, the Learning and Skills Council, the East
Midlands Development Agency and the national bodies—you
have sector skills councils and they set their priorities as well—need
to work together. It is not easy just to draw a new diagram, because
things have grown up for a purpose—to deliver to individuals
and to businesses the kind of support they need. Things such as
Train to Gain, for example, are a critical part of the new infrastructure,
but so is emda, with its analysis of the broad sectors
that we wanted to see develop in the future. This is about not
trying to double-guess. It is about being responsive to businesses
here and now, but it is also about thinking about the future,
what that future might look like and therefore where skills development
might need to focus itself, and not just at the lower skill levels—level
1, level 2 and level 3. It is also about engaging with the university
sector for foundation degrees, higher-level skills and higher-level
apprenticeships. There are a number of players that need to work
together. That is the important point about how emda operates
with the other bodies to ensure that those things are integrated.
Jonathan Lindley: I just wanted
to add that you will of course know that one of the members of
the emda board is vice-chancellor of one of the region's
universities, so he does represent that sector.
Q190 Judy Mallaber: You will know
that we met the university sector. You have probably seen the
evidence, so you will have seen that they highlighted the fact
that they employ 63,000 people in the region and they have a budget
of £1.3 billion. They are on the regional economic board.
Is there any reason why you have not met them, given their importance?
Phil Hope: I will have met them
on a number of occasions previously. Indeed, I met them only this
morning at Derby University with John Coyne. We had a meeting
of the regional economic cabinet last November—that long
ago—when we were discussing what the right way forward was.
We invited, at the end of the meeting of the cabinet, a wider
group of stakeholders. Quite a few of the university representatives
came to that seminar to talk about the specific contribution that
the university sector makes, as well as all the other organisations—the
private sector, FE, schools and so on—to creating a successful,
strong region. Indeed, for the next-but-one regional economic
cabinet, we have invited the university sector to make a presentation
about the contribution that they feel they can make and that they
need to continue to make. I am particularly interested in the
relationship between the higher education sector and the business
community, because I think we have some excellent examples of
those partnerships, when universities offer incubation settings
for small businesses to start up, for example. I met one at Derby
this morning. Some people had come back to skill-up and do career
changes, in this case around photography and that area of media
and creativity, and the university actually helped them to set
up a small business. They were saying to me that they had just
qualified this year and they were now just launching their business
on to the great and good, as it were. That is a good example of
the creativity and the new ways of thinking that universities
are using. Career development is no longer the milk round, with
21-year-olds leaving university with their degree and getting
into jobs. Those days are long gone. Universities need to be out
in their communities, working with businesses, the third sector
and voluntary organisations, providing opportunities to think
about how they are embedded within their local areas. I was at
Derby, so I can speak about that from fresh knowledge. It is particularly
rooted in the Derby and Derbyshire community in terms of how it
operates. That isn't true of all the universities, but I do think
it is an important part of a success strategy for universities
in future.
Q191Chairman: Can I just reinforce two
points, because I think you are absolutely correct—I can
tell you from direct experience—about the taskforce role
that you referred to a little while ago? After 9/11, Rolls-Royce
had a step change in engine orders and 4,500 people went. Everything
swung into action absolutely brilliantly, including emda
and Jobcentre Plus. I was very much engaged on a day-to-day basis
with doing some of the work for some of the taskforces and some
of the work that was undertaken in some of the working parties.
It worked absolutely brilliantly well. It was excellent. Notwithstanding
that, just to stress the point that Judy made, we received evidence
from the trade unions from the manufacturing and engineering sector
that they feel that they are big organisations in terms of the
economic strategy for the whole of the East Midlands, but that
they are frozen out of the process. As Judy was saying, they have
a lot of expertise and knowledge to bring to the table, and they
have antennae so they can tell what is happening in the manufacturing
sector maybe months and months before it triggers off, but they
believe that it is not being tapped into by emda, the economic
board or anyone. They understandably feel a little aggrieved about
that. You may wish to comment on that or think about it.
Phil Hope: My response would be
this: I have worked closely with most of the major trade unions—I
am thinking of Unite, but I don't know whether that is the one
you are thinking of—
Chairman: Yes.
Phil Hope:—in terms of their
insights and contributions and the things that they see going
on. Rather than picking one particular trade union, because that
in itself can carry difficulties as we know, I have a representative
from the East Midlands regional TUC on the economic cabinet—at
the moment, that post is vacant because of some job changes that
have been going on inside the regional TUC, but we will have a
permanent person there in future. Working through the regional
TUC has been the primary mechanism. I thought it appropriate to
work with all the trade unions across the region, not just those
in manufacturing, but those with many other concerns and issues
about particular sectors. I suppose my response is working through
the normal trade union, TUC structure.
Chairman: I thought it was appropriate
to lay down before you how strongly they felt.
Can we move on to the issue of budgets
and emda's budget?
Q192 Sir Peter Soulsby: As I understand
it, emda has got the expectation of a somewhat reduced
budget over the next couple of years, which of course it has planned
for—it is difficult, but it can plan for it. But last year,
it had quite a raid on its budget, as did other RDAs, for the
homebuy direct scheme, as I recall. Do you think that it is acceptable
to have short-term raids on budgets of RDAs, and emda in
particular?
Phil Hope: I suppose the important
thing was the Government needing to respond to something that
they weren't expecting, which was the downturn in the housing
market, and the need to ensure that we could put into the region
resources to support and promote the housing industry, and affordable
housing in particular. These were difficult decisions, I think,
that the Government had to make at the time, but they were taken
in response to the need to reallocate resources into, in this
case, the housing sector because of—we all know what happened
last year—the banks and so on, and the credit crunch, which
meant that it was a real challenge for the housing and construction
sector as a result of those changes. A decision was made to reallocate
resources, not to take them away from the region, but certainly
to reallocate them within the region to different purposes and
different priorities, given the immediacy of the concerns at the
time about what would happen if we hadn't reallocated the resources
in that way.
Q193 Sir Peter Soulsby: Don't
you think it rather undermines the credibility of the commitment
to the work of RDAs in general, and emda in particular,
if they are seen as a source for short-term funding in a situation
like that, rather than looking elsewhere for funding?
Phil Hope: First of all, I don't
think it would be fair to caricature what happened as being just
dipping into somebody else's budget to solve a problem. There
was a genuine need to look at where resources were being allocated
at that time for that purpose. That was a one-off event. It was,
as we all know throughout the country, something that came at
us as a result of an economic storm from abroad that wasn't anticipated—I
think we know that—and there needed to be a swift response
at that time. It was a difficult decision—I am not saying
that these are easy decisions—but you make a balanced judgement
about what's the appropriate thing to do. This was felt to be
the appropriate thing to do. That was an important part of deciding
to intervene in the housing market in that way—stepping
in and not stepping aside from the consequences for the construction
industry, for the housing industry, and for individuals and their
homes and families. So it was an appropriate thing to do. Moreover,
emda, showing its flexibility and its ability to manage
its budgets well, has managed to take those changes. It is now
planning for a budget for the future, which we know is set to
reduce by 5% over three years, in order to ensure that it works
within its budgets, finding efficiency and savings, and allocating
resources appropriately to manage its budgets well. They are still
very large budgets. The Government are still completely committed
to regional development agencies. I think that if regional development
agencies hadn't existed, we would have been into a far deeper
problem of unemployment and recession in the regions, not specifically
in the East Midlands. I think any proposals about cutting and
abolishing regional development agencies' spend in the regions
in the way that others have suggested would be cataclysmic in
terms of the regional economy in the East Midlands.
Q194 Sir Peter Soulsby: I understand
the point you made, but I think you'd accept what emda
said to us, which was that the bigger the cuts and the shorter
the notice, the harder it is to cope. Clearly it is something
to be avoided, is it not?
Phil Hope: I think it is something
that every organisation hopes does not have to happen to them.
These were exceptional circumstances at the time and exceptional
decisions had to be made. It was difficult, but I was pleased
with the way that emda responded so well to an immediate
challenge of that kind. I understand the point that it would not
be the ideal way of doing things, but these were exceptional circumstances
that required an exceptional response, and I think, with hindsight,
we can look back and say that it was the right thing to do. The
wrong thing to do would have been to ignore the impact on the
construction sector, the housing sector and people's homes, and
just let everyone cope with a random series of changes. That would
have been unacceptable. I know it was the view of another party
that is not present today, but it is not the view of this Government.
Q195 Sir Peter Soulsby: Can I
take you to an aspect of emda's budgeting that it may be
possible to have more control over? That is the flexibility that
it has at the end of the year to take budgets from one year to
another—end-year flexibility. That, as I understand it,
was taken away from emda and, I assume, from other RDAs
a couple of years ago. Is there any positive case to be made for
that except that, I assume, it is what the Treasury demands?
Phil Hope: I don't want to enter
into too much of the Treasury's territory, because you normally
get your wrists slapped if you do that as a Minister.
Sir Peter Soulsby: I am trying to make
a positive case for it.
Phil Hope: What has been interesting
is that we have been doing, I suppose, the reverse, which is bringing
some spend forward. Spend allocated for future years has been
brought forward in order to maintain—indeed, increase—public
spending at a time when the recession is at its deepest. That
has been a deliberate policy, particularly in relation to capital
spend. The region has definitely benefited from that decision,
not least in relation to, for example, the Department for Transport
and the road infrastructure in the East Midlands. We have benefited
from bringing forward the road spend. I hope that decisions by
recently elected local authorities don't undermine some of those
decisions, because if we don't have support for the tram system,
for example, that undermines the case for the road building for
Nottingham that we have brought forward. There are some really
important structural, long-term developments in the region that
we need to pay attention to. I think that that is right. I understand
your point about end-of-year flexibilities—where we started—and
about organisations valuing that. No doubt you will make your
own representations to the Treasury on those grounds as well.
The bigger story is less about that end-of-year flexibility. The
more important thing is being able to respond quickly when we
brought spending forward from later years. We should make sure
that we make the best use of that resource here and now to support
people through the downturn.
Sir Peter Soulsby: Which is indeed very
positive, but it is not a case for not restoring end-of-year flexibility.
Mr Lindley is trying to get in.
Jonathan Lindley: I was just going
to make a point. It is a very topical issue because, of course,
part of the bringing forward of capital expenditure as part of
the fiscal stimulus package was the £174 million—or
£170-something million—from the Department for Transport
for the A46 dual carriageway. I believe that the first turf was
dug for that yesterday, so it is actually stimulating right now
in the East Midlands with a huge sum of money.
Q196 Sir Peter Soulsby: But it
is the case that the lack of end-of-year flexibility can be really
quite perverse in the results that it leads to, is it not, Mr
Lindley?
Jonathan Lindley: That's a matter
for Treasury officials, of course, rather than for me. I have
to manage an annual budget like anyone else.
Sir Peter Soulsby: Of course, there's
no point in pressing that with you.
Q197 Chairman: We have more than
touched on the recent local economic climate. In terms of that,
who took the lead in ensuring that businesses throughout the East
Midlands were made aware of the financial support that was available?
Who took on board that role—GOEM, emda or you, Minister?
Phil Hope: I think that we all
played a part in making sure that businesses did know. The first
thing to do was to make sure that the services that businesses
needed in terms of getting through a downturn were there and that
they were responsive and changed to suit their needs. For example,
Business Link through emda did a magnificent job in responding
to the different circumstances in which businesses now find themselves.
So, there were different forms of advice. There was a lot of outreach
work that emda organised—not least the thrive and
survive workshops that went on in late autumn and around that
time. That made a big difference. As I said earlier, that has
been a model that I know other regions are now using. The rapid
response service that I mentioned earlier was something, again,
that was co-ordinated through the partnerships between emda.
Q198 Chairman: That's been around
a long while. I am talking about under the current economic climate.
Additional money has been made available. Who is responsible for
it and how effectively was that information pushed out to businesses?
Phil Hope: A major thing that
we did was that we were the first regions to launch the real help
now services and the new advice that was available for businesses
and, indeed, families throughout the East Midlands. I was delighted
to be with the Prime Minister when that launch happened—it
happened to be in Corby in my constituency. We then did a major
programme. We've published our own document as a regional economic
cabinet, which has been widely circulated. That spelled out the
various forms of help and advice that are now available. That
has been proven to be very successful, because all the different
partners have signed up to it, and it shows the linkages between
people. My idea would be that wherever you are—wherever
you enter into the system as an individual, a trade union, or
a business wondering where the help is—you get steered towards
the sort of service that you might need to suit your individual
circumstances.
Q199 Chairman: Are you pleased
with the job that emda did?
Phil Hope: I think emda
did a very good job in responding flexibly and swiftly to the
new economic environment in which many businesses were finding
themselves.
|
