The Big Society - Public Administration Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 101-150)

Q101 Paul Flynn: So your motives are pure, but the motives of all these organisations—many, as was pointed out, greatly respected organisations—are tainted in your view?  Would you like to identify the organisation you were talking about?

Shaun Bailey:  First and foremost, at what point did I say their motives were tainted?  Their motives are not tainted at all.  What I was trying to say to you, if you listen carefully, is that they believe their work is the most important in the world, and to them it is, the same as mine is to me and Great Ormond Street's is to them.

Q102 Paul Flynn: But could you make the distinction—

Shaun Bailey: The point is that the Government had to make decisions about where the funding was going, and it meant that some people—very worthy people—were refused their money.  But they did not speak about it in the wider context: they spoke about them and only them.

Robert Halfon:  I move on from the vendetta against the witness.

Paul Flynn: They are questions, cross­examination, Robert.

Q103 Robert Halfon: Just a couple of things: going back to the community organisers issue, the Government had about 5,000 community organisers.  What is your view about that and how that is going to work?

Lord Glasman:  For me, this is said with a gentle spirit and an open heart, but that was the key thing: that none of this can be driven unless there are local leaders who can bring people with them to make things happen and to bring about change.  In many ways the Big Society agenda pivoted on this, which was correctly understood by the Government, that there had to be a significant leadership training course, and there had to be a curriculum.  This was one area, Chair, where there was a genuine discussion about endowment, an endowment of a college for community organisers that would outlive the thing, where the curriculum could be developed and the training could be done.  That is crucial.  The quality and the status of the training, the mentorship and the development of the organisers is fundamental.  It is with sadness, a genuine sadness and regret, that when I look at the curriculum of what Locality are developing, it has none of the energy, none of the verve: it is just not leadership, it is much more like how to bring people together, and hear everybody's view.  My answer to you, Mr Halfon, is that it is vital and I really think it was a faithful call there.

Q104 Robert Halfon: I happen to agree with you 100% about these corporates, and the Chairman was very elusive on this, but is there not also a problem of big corporate charities?  Because 6% of charities get 90% of the income, and something about the Big Society that worries me is that the huge big Tesco charities will benefit from all the contracts and the work that is being supplied rather than the little neighbourhood association that may just need a few hundred—

Chair: Some of those large charities, like business, have whole departments that talk to Government.

Robert Halfon: Sometimes they are indistinguishable from Government Departments.

Polly Toynbee:  It depends very much; they are all very different.  Some of them are on very federal models where, under an umbrella of a big organisation, a major concern, you have pretty locally run day centres, projects, schemes.  Others are more corporate minded.

Q105 Robert Halfon: But they are much better and able because they have big corporate and public affairs departments to spend their time lobbying Government for x, y and z, just like the big corporates.

Polly Toynbee:  Alas, with not much success so far.

Q106 Robert Halfon: What I am saying is that for the Big Society to work, it has to support the genuine little society: it has to go down to grassroots levels so that the neighbourhood group can benefit.

Lord Glasman: Just to say one big thing; I want to share this with the Committee in defining the Big Society.  In London Citizens, we do not do services: we hold people accountable.  This has been lost in the mix.  The whole point is to get organised people together and to hold local charities to account.  A lot of the work that we do is to keep things honest in the system, and that is the role.  In a way, a lot of confusion went on with, "Are we here to develop mutuals, are we here to do co­ops?"? There is the whole thing of the restructuring.  The thing for the Big Society is for people to organise together and to protect the people and the places that they love.  That is the whole story, and that has got confused.  The root of the confusion is whether it is service provision or accountability; interest-based, or idealistic.  None of these models have been correctly ascertained, so I would be in favour of a relational, interest-based accountability model that held government, local authorities, businesses to account in the places they operate in.

Q107 Chair: I think you have also explained how you want permanent diffusion of power by this endowment process.

Lord Glasman:  Yes, which assets and institutions are necessarily part of, and I think that is outside of our purview. 

Q108 Robert Halfon: How would what you have just described about  the structure work in practice? 

Lord Glasman: I will give you one classic example.  In a hospital there is an individual complaints procedure.  Where this is dissatisfaction with the hospital, we encourage collective, associative action to put pressure on the hospital to engage, whether there are issues of hygiene, whether there are issues of humiliation.  Basically, if it is an individual complaint it is just that: it is a random, anomalous fact.  But where there are systematic institutional problems that can only be addressed through social engagement, through social action by organisers, that is the key: it is not about the provision, it is about the accountability.  What we want is skilful, professional, vocational people doing their work and being kept honest by the people to whom they provide services being partners, not in the production but in the accountability.

Q109 Chair: We need to come back to this question of how smaller Big Society organisations can be involved in delivering public services.  Is this a possibility? Can they do this consistently, or is it something for central Government?

Polly Toynbee:  Well, not open heart surgery; it depends what you mean by public services.  There is such diversity the moment you ask that question.  There are some things that are really very much better done by the smaller—

Q110 Chair: My GP, your GP practice, is quite a small business, actually, and it is a private partnership.

Polly Toynbee:  Yes indeed, and it is about to become a hell of a lot bigger, because consortia look like they are going to be enormous.

Q111 Chair: It will still be a private partnership, but it will hopefully have more power to advocate on your behalf.

Polly Toynbee:  It is a very peculiar hybrid that you would not find as a model anywhere else: it is a weird bit of history.

Q112 Chair: A weird bit of history?  It is the backbone of the health service.

Polly Toynbee:  It is not: it was a compromise at the last moment in the creation of the health service that left this rather weird hybrid situation.

Chair: General practice could be regarded as the most successful part of the health service.

Paul Flynn: What do we do on these Committees when the Chairman goes out of control and off piste with his questions?

Q113 Chair: I do not feel I am off piste, but the question is what can Government do to support and empower much smaller organisations like the kind of charities and voluntary groups that you represent?

Shaun Bailey:  Basically, we have a centrally driven system because of where the money comes from.  Wherever the money is administered, who is in charge of that money will determine how granular you can get with the distribution of that.  That is why the local authority—which is not always a perfect vehicle, by the way, for distributing money to charities—will be important, but you cannot do it from Westminster.  Also, there needs to be a distinct line between what can be provided and what cannot be provided by charities, because the big charities have all the stability that a big organisation will have, and they may be able to take on some of the more onerous bits of work that the Government do, but as you get further and further down the scale you need more clarity and long-term support in order to allow those small charities to develop a mechanism to carry this out properly, so you do not want to be giving one, two or three years of funding in contracts: it needs to be long term.

Q114 Chair: The danger is with small organisations, as with small businesses, that the Government will hand over some money for something to be delivered, and the individuals will take the money and run.  It happens, doesn't it?

Shaun Bailey: I would like to think we could do it a little bit better.

Q115 Chair: But Mr Kruger, would your organisation ever consider signing a contract with central Government or local government?

Danny Kruger: To take the money and run? 

Chair: No, not to take the money and run.

Danny Kruger: There is no contract that our tiny little outfit could possibly enter into with Whitehall.

Q116 Chair: Or with local government, or with the local probation services?

Danny Kruger:  We deliver services; we get paid a small amount by council, police, not probation or prison, as it happens, although we do work for them.

Q117 Chair: NOMS, as it is now called.

Danny Kruger:  Yes.  We do little jobs for the public sector in that sense, but local government, I think, is the appropriate level for us to be contracting with.  We are in this world of contracting out massive contracts to massive corporate conglomerates, like Serco, and it might be that we could be a subcontractor to a subcontractor to Serco.

Polly Toynbee:  But they will take 30 to 40% off the top before they hand it to you, so you will do the hardest work and they will make quite large profits out of your hard work.

Q118 Chair: And then they will steal your ideas.

Danny Kruger: That is right.

Polly Toynbee:  Or they will claim they did it.

Danny Kruger:  Shaun is right.  It sounds pessimistic: the fundamental answer is going to be about local government retaining more of local taxation and spending it as it sees fit.  Beyond that, there are things that are being done of which I approve, like the Big Society Bank to help with lending.  I think the community organising principle is right, to somehow engender the spirit of civic activism, and there are arguments about how that should be done; we might be doing it wrong.

Q119 Kelvin Hopkins: Lord Glasman, you are quoted in our papers as saying, "the Big Society is a cover, not for cuts but for corporate domination."  How much is the Big Society just a staging post to shift what is being publicly paid for, publicly accountable, publicly provided, into the corporate world?

Lord Glasman:  This is what is at stake in this discussion, in fact.  There are two models, there is the market model and the state model.  If you want a socialist model—let us call it that for a moment—whereby there is power in the corporate governance given to the work force, the users, the locality, to the funder as well, which is vital, then that is a big transformation of the way things go.  At the moment, Danny, once again, it is with generosity that I say that there is a swing between, "It has to be state", or, "It has to be completely neutralised, co-ordinated by one interest only, the worker interest."  This balance of power is completely missing, but that is crucial to any institution and the Big Society idea is that that is when people come together, where countries embrace.  For example—Dover Port is a classic case in point—unless a community land trust is held in perpetuity by the people of Dover for the nation then all of this would just lead to a situation where, if a company is successful it gets bought out, and if it is unsuccessful the assets get marketised.  Cadburys is a good example of how that works.  Unless there is a conceptualisation of institutional assets and endowment, what you will have is Serco and the big corporations ultimately using the Big Society as a staging post for buying up Government services when they fail.  This is what is at stake here.  Obviously I would say that, I do not want to get into endless argument.  I would say that is why we need to be quite radical in our thinking about assets, institutions, power, corporate governance and balance of interests.

Q120 Kelvin Hopkins: There are some who would argue that we should have public services provided by profit-making companies, but what role do you think there should be for making profit out of public services?

Lord Glasman: I think in terms of the provision of public services, that is a complete—I do not know whether to call it a red herring or a blue herring.

Q121 Chair: Politicians do love saying, "This is fine, this is not for profit" or, "We are going to let to a not-for-profit organisation".

Lord Glasman: This is another heresy of mine: I do not think either of the big issues are around co­ops or mutuals, I think that is interesting but not central.  What is absolutely central is that there is an energy generated by balance of interests in every institution, that a common good is pursued, and that it is always the same.  In every institution there is the funder, which is legitimate whether that is capital in the private sector, or whether that is the state or the local authority in the local sector.  There is a work force.

Q122 Chair: Does that automatically mean Co­op good, Tesco bad?

Lord Glasman:  No, not at all.  Just to clarify, I am going down the opposite track.  I am saying that in every institution, whether public or private, there should always be a balance of interests, where the owners, the users and the workers are each represented and generate a common good through negotiation.  That way, you generate energy.  This is the paradox of community organising, just to go back: you can only have a common good if there is tension, if there are degrees of conflict.  That is what is missing.

Q123 Kelvin Hopkins: I am willing to be persuaded of anything, but I am old-fashioned, I like good public services, free at the point of need, democratically accountable, equitable across the whole country, staffed by directly employed, dedicated, properly paid public servants, all driven by the public service ethos.  That is my view.  I have not heard a convincing argument for changing that arrangement.

Lord Glasman: That is all great, but the only convincing argument for that is the experience of public services.  Often the management was overbearing, the workers were demoralised and often it was not that great.  This goes back to a discussion we are not going to have now: people have to be given power to change their lives, but there can be no responsibility without that redistribution of power to actually do something.  That is just an invitation for humiliation.

Q124 Kelvin Hopkins: I must say, this is not my experience of the national health service, for example.  I may say, in the last couple of decades when there has been pressure to be more commercial in the way operates, there has been a degree of demoralisation.

Lord Glasman:  Could I give one example, just to share it, of why the Big Society is important, why engaging with this model is important and how we should do better than that?  I read a report on mental illness and the public sector. It says that there are 250,000 children on antidepressant drugs.  This cannot be right: we cannot be turning a quarter of a million children who have got behavioural difficulties into a medical condition.  The lack of relationality, the lack of time to love and care for people in the system, and how to get genuine relational support, are the issues here.  Danny, this is time that needs to be spent building trust, love, care and concern for people, and we have become very procedural, very administrative, very technocratic.

Q125 Chair: Briefly, can I invite the other members of the panel to comment on this if they wish to?

Polly Toynbee: It is very dangerous to say that there is just one model.  There are some things that different organisations can do best; there are some things that the voluntary sector does best.  Quite a lot of things the state does best, and I do go back to that Public Accounts Committee report that shows—

Q126 Chair: This seems to be the burden of your complaint.

Polly Toynbee:  The idea that private is always best has been absolutely exploded by the Public Accounts Committee.

Q127 Chair: But who advocated that private is always best?

Polly Toynbee:  A lot of people: it has been the default position. Quite a lot of the Labour Government and other people assumed that if something was not working very well in the public sector the answer must be to privatise it because an A4e or whoever will come in and do it better; they will sell it better.  The report really showed that it was not the case, and the DWP itself, its own jobcentres, did significantly better at getting people into work, which was an important thing.  It does not mean that the state is always the best, but I do think that there is a huge pressure to say that it must always be better to outsource: outsourcing always must be the better way of doing it.  I am against that.

Q128 Chair: People used to say the man in Whitehall knew best, and we do not say that any more.

Polly Toynbee: Sometimes the man in Whitehall does know best.  Sometimes awful things happen out there and the man in Whitehall has to be there to put it right, and to step in and say, "This is a disaster"—whether it is the care quality standards at Stafford hospital, or whatever—with a backstop of people as regulators.

Q129 Chair: What Jesse Norman calls "the rigor mortis state": the long screwdriver from the Treasury, the tweaking of benefits—

Polly Toynbee: For some things, but not for others: we can all find an example to fit our model, but the point is that whatever service you are looking at, there are an awful lot of times when you are very glad that the state is there, and the state is all that is there to save people.

Q130 Chair: But micromanagement from the centre does not work, does it?

Shaun Bailey:  Part of the challenge for the Big Society—however we go forward—is to figure out at which point you institute any given mechanism, because I am also of the opinion that it is not always about the private sector.  The problem is about internal mechanisms and where the fear lies.  If you work in a council you want to give a contract to a big company because it will accept any financial loss. We need to have the political leadership to say, "We will support you to find the right mechanism, not the cheapest mechanism", and for me that is one of the big challenges for the Big Society.  One of the bookends on this conversation for me is that it is not over: it has started, and it will take some time to figure out.  I will go back to the office of the Prime Minister and say, "At this Committee meeting many things have been brought up that you may need to have another look at."

Q131 Chair: We are going to do a report.

Shaun Bailey:  I would champion the report in front of certain people.

Polly Toynbee:  Can I understand one other thing: the idea that ideas from the centre are always wrong is not right either.

Q132 Chair: I am not saying that.

Polly Toynbee:  No, but again there is a sense that top­down is always bad.  Sure Start was created because there was an vacuum in the welfare state, cradle to grave.  There never was a cradle.  It required the initiative of Government to say we need nurseries, we need families to be helped and supported at the very earliest point.  We need these Sure Starts, and where they work well they really are—or were—hubs of local communities, where mothers gather together, parents gather together, which is the place where community often starts.

Q133 Robert Halfon: I accept some of what you said about the Sure Starts, but could not that money that was spent on Sure Start have been given directly to smaller charities and family groups—

Polly Toynbee:  Some of them were run by charities.

Q134 Robert Halfon: —to set up those things themselves, rather than set up a huge new state structure?

Polly Toynbee:  It was not all state structure at all: 4Children runs quite a few of them.  Quite a lot of them were run by charities.

Q135 Chair: It was a centralised blueprint, though, wasn't it?

Polly Toynbee: You needed the money because it was quite expensive to get it going, and, what is more, you needed money because, although the community aspect was very important, what was also really important was the professional services for families in real trouble.

Q136 Chair: Lord Glasman.

Lord Glasman: I just wanted to come in here on the Sure Start issue because this is crucial for the problem and where the Big Society may have gone wrong.  Sure Start started as a completely relational, mother and child-based thing.  It was brilliant: mothers got together and they helped each other with their children.

Polly Toynbee:  They did not just get together: there was an enormous mechanism to support them doing it.

Lord Glasman: Sure, and it was done through different local charities: it was a very good example of diverse institutions—

Q137 Robert Halfon: But it is a state infrastructure that needed to be created.

Lord Glasman: What it was not was ends-based, activity-based; all those things were brought to bear to bring relationships to people who were isolated, and who were having difficulty.  In three years it became a welfare-to-work programme, in which the whole thought was to separate the children from the mothers and get the mothers into the workplace, and that is why it is vital to have some power—

Q138 Robert Halfon: Why couldn't the money have been given directly to the charities, local charities, family groups?

Polly Toynbee:  Because in a lot of these places there was nothing there.  The most money was spent in the very poorest places where there was least social capital and there was nothing there.

Q139 Kelvin Hopkins: I want to return to my original question about the role of profit making in public services.  I give you two examples. One is the health service in America; health is provided privately and it takes up twice as much as a proportion of GDP as the British health service, which is still largely public.  The railways in Britain are privatised; they are in public hands on the continent, and we have just had a report saying that our railways cost 40% more to operate than the continental, publicly owned railways.  The case for private profit making in the public services seems to be, I think, utterly destroyed by such examples. 

Shaun Bailey:  There is a question of quality though; to compare the maths, I do not know the answer to this—

Chair: And there is a question of regulation as well.

Shaun Bailey: —in terms of qualities and how they are privatised.

Robert Halfon: It depends on what kind of privatisation.

Chair: And how the railways are regulated; I do not think we should get bogged down by this.

Kelvin Hopkins: I remain to be convinced.

Q140 Lindsay Roy: Just a bit of context—if the Big Society is about anything it is about profit making, and in my view, it is about social capital, it is about dividends, benefits to individuals and communities and families and to their wellbeing.  However, what I wanted to pick up on was that there has been a thrust towards mutuals.  Has there been any increase in mutuals?  Is that a benchmark for the success of the Big Society?  Are you aware of any increase in mutuals or co-operatives?

Polly Toynbee:  They have not really got going yet. Maybe there is a wish to encourage them, and Shaun can tell us about that, but it seems to me that, I am afraid—you may disagree with me here—it is always going to be fairly marginal.  Wonderful things happen like Coin Street because, at the very last moment, Ken Livingstone, just before he was bunged out by Mrs Thatcher, gave them a dollop of land.  It was the greatest thing he did.  John Lewis got going because the founder gave it.  These things are rare.

Q141 Chair: And very controversial at the time, Coin Street, wasn't it?

Polly Toynbee:  Very controversial.  It is quite hard to construct a whole political idea to make those things happen everywhere or in any kind of way other than random bits.

Lord Glasman:  Just to reiterate, one of the models of privatisation is a worker buy-out, mutualist model.  Obviously, I have my reservations about that because there is no balance of interest there either.  Once again, if this is a serious agenda, there has to be endowment, institutions with assets that can have some capital to grow and develop.

Shaun Bailey:  There are two stages: the first stage is that there are many more employee mutuals asking the question, "Could there be a viable employee mutual, should they do that?"  There are some in the pipeline, there are even a few that already exist, but if you look at the growing number of people who are asking, it would suggest that there will be many more in future.

Q142 Lindsay Roy: Chair, I wonder if we could get some written evidence on that from Shaun.

Shaun Bailey:  I would still say this: it is small and growing.  It is not a tidal wave.

Chair: We will ask you for a note on that, if we may.  Mr Mulholland.

Q143 Greg Mulholland: Thank you very much, Chair.  One of the strands of the idea of the Big Society that we have not particularly touched on today so far is the idea of getting people to be involved, and specifically to volunteer.  The Hansard Society did a survey in March which, rather worryingly for the whole concept, found that only one in 10 people say that they are certain to volunteer over the next two years.  Is that a significant problem for the Big Society?  It also suggests, perhaps, with attitudes in this country compared to those in some countries, that it is a little overoptimistic.

Danny Kruger:  I think it is very difficult; the economy in Britain is driven by a long-hours culture and all sorts of problems with where people work and where they live.  We are not sufficiently communal, communitarian: it is the way our economy and our society is set up, and that is historic.  Secondly, the cultural expectation is that social responsibility is the job of the state: people find it very difficult and they also do not see the point.  I think there are these genuine barriers, and it will have to just happen.  I do think that people have a yearning to participate, to take responsibility, to belong, and as we know it is an incredibly fulfilling experience when you do get stuck in, but it is quite hard.  Also, volunteers are not always the answer.  We have volunteers in our organisation: they are fairly useful, but they waste their huge skills.  We get these incredibly high-powered professionals come in, and all we can get them to do is to cook dinner.  I regret the association of the Big Society idea with volunteering, because I do not regard that as a central term, but the spirit of participation and taking responsibility has got to be.

Polly Toynbee:  May I throw in another statistic?  The third sector research centre at the University of Southampton is actually rather more optimistic.  It finds that 25% of people, which is quite high, volunteer at least once a month, and some of them a lot more.  We should not be too pessimistic about people's willingness to get involved, and a great many more people say they would like to.  But again, it is hugely weighted towards the affluent areas.  Two thirds of volunteering is done by 7% of the population.

Q144 Chair: It is a challenge, that this is concentrated in affluent areas, but this is not a reason not to try and extend this concept to less affluent areas.

Polly Toynbee:  No, but the idea that it will just spring up because David Cameron says let us have a Big Society—

Shaun Bailey: There is no idea that it will just spring up.  This is one of the challenges that the Big Society is trying to take square on.  The whole idea about volunteering is that we have quite a passive society, and it is about moving us on to be engaged.

Q145 Chair: Particularly the parts of society that have become used to state handouts and state help and top­down solutions being imposed.

Shaun Bailey:  But that is where Polly's point is right; Polly is absolutely spot on: the areas of the country that need volunteering the most are where people are the least likely to volunteer.  There are things afoot to change that around, it is one of the journeys that the Big Society is on.  It gives a message to charities like v, volunteering in this area, to change that, and if you survey people below the age of 25 you get a better response, and that is some of this gaining purchase with young people to change; as younger people become more used to volunteering, it becomes something that is done more readily.

Lord Glasman: This whole concept of volunteering—Danny, I completely get the point—misses it.  When David Cameron and Steve Hilton first came to London Citizens, they said to the group it is wonderful to see such a spirit of volunteering, and no one in that room thought they were volunteering; they were doing politics, right?  And they were pursuing their interests.  It is engaging people's interests in what they do that will drive this: if people feel that their children, their wages, their housing is up for grabs here, they do not say, "I am going to do some volunteering".

Q146 Chair: It is enlightened self­interest, not pure altruism?

Lord Glasman:  Yes, self­interest broadly conceived, and that is what generates a common good, when you can link that with others.  That is the Labour story.

Q147 Robert Halfon: That is why it is about social entrepreneurs rather than volunteers.

Lord Glasman:  Social entrepreneurs are individual leaders who have an agenda.  You have to engage the associative energy of people.

Polly Toynbee:  There is an absolute horror at the idea of a national day of volunteering.  The voluntary sector absolutely shuddered at that: the idea that, suddenly, one day a year they would get a whole lot of people; all of the Cabinet would have to go one day a year.  I was talking at a brilliant youth centre the other day, I was just visiting them, and they said the problem was that people from the City kept saying, "We want to do our bit, CSR and all that.  We want to send you 10 people to go and volunteer for one day.  We do not know what to do with them: we want their money, so we charge them for volunteering, but they are no use."

Lord Glasman:  Or we want them to stand up for the living wage.

Q148 Chair: We must draw to a close.

Polly Toynbee:  Or we want them to come every week and take one group of children that they get to know.

Shaun Bailey:  Polly's point is right: that is the reality of it, but it does not mean we should not try.  If you try to get people more engaged with their self-interest or anything else, they then at least get the concept that they could be engaged.  Too many of us sit around not engaging.

Q149 Paul Flynn: What we have got at the end of this is a Government promotion, a gimmick, a personal one by the Prime Minister that is taking away £1.3 billion this year from bodies that have served the country well—wait a minute—going up to £1.4 billion, to create what?  To create a Big Middle Class Society?

Shaun Bailey: The money was taken by the previous Government.

Paul Flynn: What will replace it; volunteers, speculation, theory?

Q150 Robert Halfon: Final question, and you might be surprised for me to say this as a Conservative, but I have a view that trade unions—if you put away Bob Crow in a box for a minute—have a fundamental role in the Big Society, and we should be engaging with them much more because of the service provision: they are the Big Society.  Could I just take your views on this?

Danny Kruger:  I totally agree, and that is a good one to end on, because I would challenge Maurice's idea that it is simply about power, advocacy and mobilising communities to demand their rights from the state and from corporates.  The best tradition of the left is the trade union movement, which, before nationalisation, was a provider of all the services that communities needed, from insurance to education and health care.  If only trade unions would provide this once again, and dedicate themselves to providing services people need rather than mobilising.

Robert Halfon: A lot of them do; a lot of them provide services already.

Kelvin Hopkins: They provide legal support for people, they have education in schools, they do a whole range of other things.  This is what trade unions do.  Industrial action is a tiny proportion of what they do.

Chair: I am going to draw it to a close.  I would like to thank our four volunteers very much indeed for appearing, pro bono, in front of this Committee.  It has been a very, very rich session, I am extremely grateful to you all.


 
previous page contents


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 14 December 2011