Drawing special attention to: Jobseekers Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 and Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules - Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee Contents


Twenty-seventh Report


Instruments Drawn To The Special Attention of The House

The Committee has considered the following instruments and has determined that the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on the grounds specified.

A.  Jobseeker's Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/688)

Date laid: 14 March 2011

Parliamentary Procedure: negative

Summary: Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached to this instrument the information it contains is very vague. Subsequent questions asked by the Committee have produced little more clarity. Given that the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any element of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme to which they are referred is the loss of 3 months' benefit, the content and operation of the Scheme should be much more clearly set out. The degree of flexibility and discretion built into the arrangements causes the Committee to question how it can be delivered with any degree of consistency. Unlike its predecessor, the Work for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small pilot exercise but will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC report on the proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular the lack of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or punishment. The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has been given insufficient information to understand the policy objective of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; and effectively to assess whether the outcome will help claimants to improve their prospects of obtaining employment.

These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House and they may imperfectly achieve the policy objective.

1.  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has laid this instrument under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Social Security Act 1998 and the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as modified by the Welfare Reform Act 2009) along with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). A report by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), a statutory consultee has been published with the instrument ("the Act Paper").[1] The Committee also sought further evidence from the DWP. Their response is printed in Appendix 1.

2.  The instrument sets up the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme. This is defined in Regulation 2 as "a scheme within section 17A (schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: "work for your benefit" schemes etc.) of the Act ... that is designed to provide work or work-related activity for up to 30 hours per week over a period of four consecutive weeks with a view to assisting claimants to improve their prospects of obtaining employment". These Regulations also provide for Jobcentre Plus personal advisers to have discretion to require that a Jobseeker's Allowance claimant participates in the Scheme and sets sanctions for those who fail to participate without good cause. Claimants will still be required to be actively seeking work during their time on the Scheme which is one of the conditions of receiving Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

Purpose of the scheme

3.  This is not stated clearly or consistently. Paragraph 2 of the EM says:

"This scheme is aimed at those who require extra support to help them re-focus their approach to job search and gain work-related disciplines. The purpose of the Scheme is to provide work or work-related activity with a view to assisting the customer to improve their prospects of obtaining employment."

  But the Departmental Memorandum to the SSAC states:

"Jobcentre Plus advisers have clearly identified a small number of Jobseeker's Allowance customers who may be doing only the very bare minimum to comply with the requirement that they actively seek work. Advisers have made clear that a programme that allowed them to actively intervene at an early stage with these specific customers could have a positive impact.... This small minority requires active engagement though a mandatory programme, in order to reorient their mindset and change their approach to their search for work" (para 2.2)

4.  The SSAC's letter to the Secretary of State included in the Act Paper states explicitly the concerns of consultees that the scheme appears to be a punishment rather than a way to help people improve their skills and help them back into work (paragraphs 4.4 & 5.2). This view is underpinned by the very strict sanction régime - failure to participate fully in the 4-week scheme without good cause results in a 3-month benefit sanction. Failure to participate following a second referral to a scheme would result in loss or reduction of JSA for 6 months. Unusually, the claimant cannot avert the penalty by re-engaging with the scheme, and the first sanction is more severe than for other circumstances where the length of an initial penalty for failing to meet particular requirements is more normally 2 weeks' loss of benefit.

5.  The DWP disputes this, stating in their response: "the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is not a sanction or a punishment but has been developed in recognition that some customers require additional support." (paragraph 16, Act Paper). DWP go on to argue that "after their four week placement, they will be better placed to re-assess their approach and engage more effectively with the requirements of seeking work and the other support offered by Jobcentre Plus" (paragraph 21, Act Paper). The Committee asked DWP to provide evidence to support this assertion and they responded "Mandatory Work Activity is a new scheme and therefore we have limited evidence." The Department did express its intention to collect evaluation data but current plans are imprecise and no timetable is given.

Content of the scheme

6.  The SSAC is sceptical that the Scheme will improve claimants' prospects of obtaining employment in line with the provisions of the Act. "Published evidence is at best ambivalent about the chances of 'workfare' type activity improving outcomes for people who are out of work" (SSAC letter, paragraph 4.2). The Department's own research on similar schemes overseas indicates that "there is little evidence that workfare increased the likelihood of finding work" unless conditions are as close to work as possible.[2] The effectiveness of the Scheme may therefore depend on the nature of the activities, but material in the EM and the Act Paper gives very little indication of what claimants on the scheme might actually be asked to do. Given that the Departmental tender for providers went out on 14 February and the scheme is intended to commence on 25 April, the Committee asked DWP officials if they could provide some examples of actual schemes. DWP said:

"The contracting process for Mandatory Work Activity has not yet been completed, contracts will be awarded in April 2011.

We have not asked bidders to specify the placements that they propose to find for customers; instead we will rely on their ability to source appropriate placements throughout the life of the contracts. This is in keeping with changes across the Department, which focus on allowing as much flexibility as possible to consider what will best support customers.

However, all the placements that the providers find must offer people the opportunity to gain fundamental work disciplines, as well as being of benefit to local communities. The Department has stipulated that each provider will be expected to have placements available across a range of sectors."

The House may wish to press the Department for further detail.

7.  These Regulations bear similarities to the Work for Your Benefit regulations which the Committee considered last year,[3] although they were not actually implemented and the current Regulations revoke that scheme. One of the key concerns at that time was that providers should not exploit participants as a source of cheap labour and that participants would gain relevant skills from the experience. These concerns remain for the replacement Scheme set out in the current Regulations. The Work for Your Benefit Scheme differed in that it was based on a randomised selection process and was a small pilot scheme with a clear evaluation plan aimed at examining whether mandatory work activity had demonstrable benefits. That evidence was not obtained but the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is being introduced nationally from the start of May 2011.

Selection of participants

8.  Whatever the Department's intention, a key factor in the way the scheme will work in practice is the way in which a customer can be selected for participation in the scheme. The Departmental Memorandum in the Act Paper indicates that although under the Regulations advisers will be able to send a customer to Mandatory Work Activity at any point in their claim, they expect most referrals will be for customers who do not find work quickly and have been unemployed for 13 weeks or more, but this will normally not include people actively participating in other elements of the Work Programme such as Work Club or Work Experience (paragraph 4.1). DWP estimate that the Scheme will initially deliver around 10,000 placements per year[4] but expects that this number will increase because "the competition to deliver Mandatory Work Activity asked bidders to maximise the number of places that they offer". No evidence is provided to explain how this scale of provision has been assessed to meet the expected level of demand or need for the scheme.

9.  Detailed criteria on the basis for referral to a Mandatory Work Activity are not included in the Regulations as DWP's intention is to allow Jobcentre Plus advisers discretion in deciding when a referral is most appropriate. The Departmental Memorandum in the Act Paper indicates that the Adviser will be required to consider whether the particular activity is reasonable for the individual customer and to take into account any circumstances that may affect a customer's ability to participate in the Scheme (for example childcare responsibilities).

10.  The Committee has commented before on the great responsibility placed on the individual Jobcentre Plus Adviser. We welcome the intention stated at paragraph 30 of the DWP's response to the SSAC that, as an additional safeguard, once a personal Adviser has identified that a customer may be suitable for the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme they will be encouraged to discuss the appropriateness of the referral with their Adviser Manager who will decide whether to approve the referral. However we note that this safeguard is indicated as recommended best practice rather than a statutory requirement.

11.  As the Guidance to Advisers is an important element of understanding how the Scheme will work the Committee asked to see the extract from the guidance that sets out how Advisers will identify claimants as being suitable for referral to mandatory work activity. DWP replied:

"The Department is currently in the process of finalising the guidance for Jobcentre Plus advisers, and so is unable to share an example of the Guidance with the Committee. However, we are able to share the high level principles that will be used to identify suitable customers.

Jobcentre Plus advisers will consider evidence demonstrated by the customer against a set of standards to make constant judgements about whether the customer would benefit from the Mandatory Work Activity support. These standards will be underpinned by indicating behaviours associated with the disciplines that are key requirements of finding, securing and retaining employment. Customers who consistently fail to demonstrate a number of these indicators over a period of time will be considered for a referral to Mandatory Work Activity.

Some of the indicators Jobcentre Plus advisers may include:

  • tends to take no personal responsibility for job search activity, waits to be organised/contacted;
  • reluctant to make speculative approaches, follow up advice or job leads;
  • regularly fails to attend appointments and interviews on time;
  • has little or no recent work experience;
  • limited awareness of the types of support available to help them with their jobsearch; and
  • has no realistic appreciation of employer attitudes or requirements."

12.  We are concerned that the EM attached to the instrument mentions that this Guidance to Advisers will be issued via the intranet. To reduce the likelihood of appeals and to ensure that the guidance is applied with transparent fairness it would be appropriate for it to be made available to the public.

Conclusion

13.  Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached to this instrument the information it contains is very vague. Subsequent questions asked by the Committee have produced little more clarity. Given that the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any element of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme to which they are referred is the loss of 3 months' benefit, the content and operation of the Scheme should be much more clearly set out. The degree of flexibility and discretion built into the arrangements causes the Committee to question how it can be delivered with any degree of consistency. Unlike its predecessor, the Work for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small pilot exercise but will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC report on the proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular the lack of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or punishment. The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has been given insufficient information to understand the policy objective of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; and effectively to assess whether the outcome will help claimants to improve their prospects of obtaining employment.

B.  Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 863)

Date laid: 16 March 2011

Parliamentary Procedure: form of negative procedure

Summary: this Statement makes a number of significant changes to the Immigration Rules, including giving effect to the full migrant caps under Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System ("the PBS") relating to Highly Skilled and Skilled Migrants respectively. The Committee has restricted its analysis to the changes to Tiers 1 and 2. The Committee has followed the development of the Government's migration cap policy, having taken oral evidence from the Home Office Minister Baroness Neville-Jones last Summer and drawn two earlier Statements to the special attention of the House. The policy objectives for the changes are challenging, and have evolved since the interim migration cap was introduced. When the Government laid an earlier Statement effectively closing down the old Tier 1 (General) category to persons applying from overseas, the Committee expressed its disappointment to the Government about the level of supporting information. Despite the Committee's request for this to be rectified when the full migration limits policy was introduced, the Government have still not published a comprehensive explanation of the findings from the consultation on Tiers 1 and 2. This makes it difficult to know stakeholders' views or understand why the Government have made the policy decisions they have. The UK Border Agency has published an Impact Assessment in support of the changes and this is available on the UKBA website. Whilst this IA provides some useful information, the Committee considers that there remain significant evidence gaps which appear to have a direct bearing on whether the Tiers 1 and 2 changes will achieve their policy objectives.

This instrument is drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House and may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives.

14.  This Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules ("the Statement") makes a number of significant changes to the Immigration Rules. The Statement was laid on 16 March with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and was accompanied by a Written Statement from Baroness Neville-Jones (Minister of State, Home Office) [HL Deb 16 March 2011 WS13-15]. The UK Border Agency ("UKBA") has published an Impact Assessment (IA) with Annexes on its website[5]. The UKBA has also placed a Statement of Policy[6] for the Tier 1 changes in the Library of the House. Although the EM lists twelve substantive changes to the Immigration Rules as the purpose of the Statement (EM paragraph 2.1), the Committee has restricted its analysis to the changes to Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System ("the PBS").

15.  The key changes to Tier 1 are as follows:

  • To close Tier 1 (General) category in-country, other than for extension applications from migrants who are already in the UK in this category, or one of the categories, now closed which preceded it before the introduction of the PBS;
  • To create a new category in Tier 1 of the PBS for exceptionally talented economic migrants with a limit of 1,000 grants of entry clearance in the first year of operation; and
  • To implement changes to the Tier 1 categories for Entrepreneurs and Investors, including provisions for accelerated settlement (see EM paragraphs 7.4 to 7.9).

16.  The key changes to Tier 2 are:

  • To implement changes to Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) category, including differing requirements for transfers depending on whether they are to be for more or less than 12 months; and
  • To implement changes to the Tier 2 (General) category, including a limit of 20,700 overseas applicants who can be sponsored under this category in the first year, and revised minimum skill, salary and English language thresholds (see EM paragraph 7.10 to 7.12).

Background

17.  In Her Majesty's Speech to both Houses of Parliament at the State Opening[7] on 25 May 2010, it was announced that the Government would limit the number of non-European Union economic migrants entering the United Kingdom. The development of this migration cap is one of the more significant developments in immigration policy since the Immigration Act 1971 came into effect. The Government's general approach has been to put in place interim limits pending the development of the policy for the full limits for Tiers 1 and 2. There have been a number of other notable Statements of Changes of Immigration Policy since the policy was announced, including:

  • HC 59 Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules ("HC 59"): this provided for the application of an interim limit on applications approved under Tier 1 (General) of the PBS, and increased the number of points required to qualify under Tier 1 (General). The Committee issued a Call for Written Evidence when HC 59 was laid, and took oral and written evidence from Home Office Minister Baroness Neville-Jones. The Committee reported HC 59 on the ground that it gave rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House [4th Report, HL Paper 17]; and
  • HC 698 Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules ("HC 698"): this closed Tier 1 (General) interim category to persons applying from outside the UK, and specified the level of the Tier 2 (General) interim limit in the Immigration Rules in response to a recent Divisional Court decision. HC 698 was also reported to the House by the Committee [17th Report, HL Paper 80].

18.  On 23 November 2010 the Home Secretary announced[8] the scope of the full limits for Tiers 1 and 2 which would take effect from April 2011. There has been a significant amount of media coverage both before and after this announcement.

Parliamentary Scrutiny

19.  The parliamentary scrutiny process for this type of instrument is unusual but is explained in the Committee's 4th Report (paragraphs 12 and 13). With any policy changes of this importance, the Government should always be aware of the need to allow the House full opportunity to scrutinise the changes. The Committee was critical of the lack of information presented to Parliament to explain why HC 698 effectively ended Tier 1 (General) to overseas applicants (see 17th Report, HL Paper 80, paragraph 10). As a result, the Committee wrote to Damian Green MP (Minister for Immigration) saying that we would have expected to see an evidence based explanation as to why the Government was changing Tier 1, some measurement of the impact of the changes, and a more comprehensive explanation of the findings from the consultation on which the changes were based. The Committee also asked for assurance that a better package of supporting information be provided when the full migration limits are introduced in April (see 19th Report, HL Paper 19, Appendix 2).

20.  It is disappointing that, despite the Committee's letter, the Government have still only made very limited information available from the outcome of the consultation into this policy. The EM says that the changes to Tiers 1 and 2 have been developed following a full public consultation, "Limits on non-EU economic migration", which ran from 28 June to 17 September 2010; and that a summary[9] of the findings is published on the UKBA website (EM paragraph 8.1). The summary shows that there is a high level of interest in the development of the policy as 3,201 responses were received to the questionnaire during the consultation period; and that these were received from a range of organisations, including: accountancy firms, manufacturers, telecommunications, universities, transport, retail, the media, the health sector, third-sector organisations, unions and professional bodies, as well as private individuals. However, the summary is limited to a two and a half page numerical breakdown of the responses with a few unattributed suggestions, and an Annex providing a list of the 571 responding organisations which provided their details (but unfortunately no information about the rest of the respondents - the great majority). The Committee considers that this does not provide a sufficiently detailed account of what has been learnt from the consultation exercise and therefore allows only a limited understanding of the resulting decisions.

Policy Objectives

21.  The IA lists the policy objectives for the design and implementation of measures to apply limits on the number of economic migrants and tightening settlement criteria as being to:

  • Contribute to the Government's target of lowering net migration to the tens of thousands;
  • Reduce any adverse social impacts of immigration;
  • Augment the selectivity of the system so that the operation of the limit does not exclude the brightest and the best;
  • Achieve the right balance between admitting those with the greatest potential benefits to the UK and the immediate need of employers to fill specific vacancies;
  • Ensure that the limit operates in a way that is fair and, so far as possible, offers certainty to businesses and other users of the system; and
  • Incentivise the skills system and encourage employers to give priority to the training and recruitment of resident workers to meet skill needs.

It is noted that by including the changes to tighten the settlement criteria, these objectives go beyond just the migration cap.

22.  Given the combination of immigration and employment objectives, as well as high level social and economic objectives, this is a very challenging set of policy objectives. When the Committee was considering HC 59, we were given assurances that the interim limits would be kept under constant review to assess whether they are meeting the objectives outlined and to monitor any unintended consequences (4th Report, Appendix 3, page 42). The policy objectives above have developed significantly from those identified in the IA for the interim limits, which were: to reduce net migration; to reduce any adverse social impacts of immigration; and to continue to attract the brightest and the best people to the UK (4th Report, paragraph 3). Although this is presumably as a result of the ongoing review, it is not immediately clear to the Committee why the objectives have evolved as they have.

Impact

23.  The challenging nature of the policy objectives means that the IA has an important role in providing reassurance that the migration cap policy is based on solid evidence. The Committee is particularly alive to this issue as the responses to the Committee's earlier Call for Written Evidence demonstrated the complexity of the possible impacts from any migration cap (see 4th Report, Appendix 2).

24.  The IA considers the impacts of the Tiers 1 and 2 migration cap, as well as a 'do nothing' option and non-regulatory options. The IA looks at the impact on migration volumes, costs and benefits, wider economic impacts, public services, and risks. The Annexes to the IA cover the Post Implementation Review (PIR) Plan, the statutory equality duties, net migration, the migration cap policy proposals, costs and benefits, wider economic impact, public services and other wider impacts, and occupations affected. There are a number of findings and assumptions in the IA which the Committee wishes to highlight to the House. These are:

  • Lowering net migration: the volume impact of the 'do nothing' option and the migrant cap option receives a significant focus in the IA (IA pages 13, 14 and 15, and Annex 3). This is to be expected given the Government's target of lowering net migration to the tens of thousands;
  • Social impacts: the IA provides some analysis of the impact of the changes on demand for healthcare, social work, social care and housing, as well as some limited analysis of public opinion and social cohesion (IA pages 24 to 26). Annex 7 expands on this, although the analysis of the impacts on public opinion and social cohesion is still very light. Although the IA cites a lack of academic research into the relationship between migration and cohesion (Annex 7, page 71), the Committee would have liked to see more evidence of the possible impacts of the changes in this regard, possibly with the consultation used to bring this out;
  • Augment the selectivity of the system so that the operation of the limit does not exclude the brightest and the best: the IA includes some analysis of the productivity levels of Tier 1 and 2 migrants and the economic effect of the policy on trend growth (IA, page 19 and 20). This is expanded in Annex 6 of the IA. The Committee welcomes this analysis which draws heavily from Labour Force Survey statistics and academic research. However, the Committee would have liked to have seen more evidence from the consultation to enable us to form a view as to whether or not the policy will achieve this objective;
  • Needs of employers: the Committee's earlier Written Call for Evidence highlighted a number of concerns about whether the Tier 1 interim cap would allow employers to get the staff they require (4th Report). The Committee therefore welcomes the analysis in the IA of the impact of the changes on the various employment sectors (IA pages 21 to 25). The Committee also notes that the UKBA has previously provided statements from the Confederation of British Industries and the British Chamber of Commerce to support the changes (see 17th Report of this Session, page 7). During the Committee's earlier oral evidence session, Baroness Neville-Jones said that they were mindful of the need to consult on the scope of the full migration caps and that the Government was not going to ignore the fact that groups of employers were concerned about the potential impact (4th Report, page 39). It is disappointing therefore that although the IA acknowledges that the proposals will not affect migrant workers uniformly, creating greater difficulties for some sectors and occupations than others (IA page 21), there is very little evidence from the consultation showing exactly where the risks are likely to be;
  • Potential benefits to the UK: this objective is of particular importance given the current economic situation. The Committee notes that the Home Secretary[10] had used the fact that at least 30% of Tier 1 migrants were either not working, or working in low paid jobs, as a reason for closing the old Tier 1 (General) route. In explaining the Tier 1 policy decisions, the Committee would have expected to see some analysis of the contribution made by the other Tier 1 migrants; and
  • Fairness: one of the objectives of the policy is that it operates in a way that is fair. The House may wish to note the findings from the Specific Impact Tests at Annex 2 which show the percentage breakdown of Tier 1 and 2 visas in 2009. This shows that 55% of Tier 2 visa issues were for Indian nationals, and 39% and 18% of Tier 1 visa issues were for Indian and Pakistani visa nationals respectively (IA page 30 and 31). The IA also says that the changes to intra-company transfers would impact on Indian nationals, and the changes to Tier 2 (General) criteria will impact on specific occupations for which, typically, migrants from the Indian sub-continent and the rest of Asia have previously been admitted under Tier 2 (IA page 30 and 31). The IA however is silent on how the Government will manage any perceptions of unfairness as a result of the changes.

Review

25.  The EM says that all the changes made by this Statement will be monitored on an on-going basis as part of the review of progress towards meeting the Government's commitment to reduce annual net migration from the level of hundreds of thousands to the level of tens of thousands (paragraph 12.2). The PIR Plan (see Annex 1 of the IA) says that there will be a review of the policy before April 2012, and the success criteria will include: a reduction in PBS numbers; the UK economy continues to perform well; firms up-skill their workers; businesses adjust to the new equilibrium; and perceptions of immigration as a negative factor decline. However, the House may be interested to note that there are also review clauses at the beginning of the Statement which require the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of the changes, and lay a report before Parliament, within five years after these changes come into force and within every five years after that.

Conclusions

26.  This is an important instrument introducing a significant change of policy for the UK immigration system. The Committee recognises the challenges of introducing the migration cap. However, although the Government has produced some useful supporting information, the Committee considers that this falls short of what we would expect for such an important policy change. This is particularly disappointing as the interim caps have been in place since last summer and should have provided a basis for a thorough assessment of the impacts of the policy. On consideration of this instrument, the Committee believes that the gaps in the evidence presented by the Government are sufficient to create a measure of doubt as to whether the Statement will achieve its policy objectives.



1   On the official documents website:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108510403/9780108510403.asp

 Back

2   Richard Crisp and del Roy Fletcher Department for Work and Pensions Research report No 533: A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf Back

3   Draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Work For Your Benefit Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2010 (Made as SI 2010/1222) - see 13th Merits Committee Report of Session 2009-10 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldmerit/84/8402.htm  Back

4   This represents less than 1% of the 1.45million people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance at March 2011. Back

5   'Migration Permanent Limit (Points Based System Tier 1 and Tier 2)' - available at: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/ia/ Back

6   'Statement of Policy: changes to the Tier 1 of the Points Based System - March 2011' Back

7   Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to Both Houses of Parliament: Delivered on Tuesday 25 May 2010  Back

8   http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/parliamentary-business/oral-statements/limits-statement/

 Back

9   'UKBA Consultation on limits on non-EU economic migration: 28 June to 17 September 2010' Back

10   Home Secretary statement of 23 November 2010 Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2011