Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Trades Union Congress (ES 09A)
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
AND THE SENIOR POLICY OFFICER
Dear Mr Exell,
The Committee took oral evidence today from
Laurie Heselden on behalf of TUC. There were a number of questions
which arose and to which the Committee would greatly appreciate
written replies. I should be grateful if the replies could be
received by next Tuesday 14 May.
The questions are as follows:
The section on New Deal for Young People (NDYP)
draws attention to various issues. In paragraph 17, concern is
expressed that one graduate in four who gets a job leaves in the
first three months, and paragraph 18 demonstrates that there are
quite wide differences in the success of the various options.
Your memorandum shows various concerns about
the success of the NDYP. Why do you think so many graduates leave
their jobs before three months?
To what do you ascribe the differences of success
of the available options in NDYP?
Of particular concern is the number of participants
in the subsidised employment optiononly 15.7 per cent compared
with a planning assumption of 40 per cent.
Why do you think the subsidised employment option
was much less popular than expected?
Paragraphs 21 and 22 contain some statistics
about reasons for dismissal in the NDYP and New Deal 25+, including
60 per cent of those who left being dismissed for poor attendance.
Can you explain to the Committee why the percentages
in the sections shown in paragraph 21 do not seem to add up to
If your conclusion that "New Deal recruits
. . . are not yet job ready" is correct, what more could
and should be done to improve this failure rate?
The Trades Union Congress has reservations about
the use of sanctions, because research has shown that sanctions
were disproportionately applied to ethnic minority claimants,
people with caring responsibilities and those with health problems
For what reasons do you believe that sanctions
are disproportionately applied to certain groups of claimants?
Do you believe other forms of pressure are appropriate
in encouraging people into work and, if so, what?
Reference is made in the memorandum to differences
of results for various groups, particularly ethnic minority claimants
(see paragraphs 24, 29 and 41). It is asserted in paraparagraph
24 that there is racial discrimination in the labour market and
the TUC calls on the Government, in paragraph 41, to "maintain
its commitment to eliminating the race gap in all the New Deal
What additional measures should the Government
take to accelerate the eradication of the race gap in New Deal
programmes to which you refer?
Do you think the Government should target particular
areas with additional help in order to raise employment rates
amongst black and ethnic minorities?
What particular role might be played by Jobcentre
Plus in raising employment rates amongst black and ethnic minorities?
The TUC draws attention to the need for "a
more explicit co-ordination of employment and industrial policy
strategies" at regional level (paragraph 70) and suggests
in paragraph 72 that there is a "lack of a co-ordinated approach
at the regional level".
Your memorandum suggests that there should be
more co-ordination of employment strategy at local & regional
level. How do you think co-ordination could be improved?
The TUC supports various initiatives such as
Employment Zones and local strategic partnerships. You suggest
in paraparagraph 78 of your memorandum that the collaborative
approach should be developed further in the years to come. What
further development do you envisage?
How can the RDAs be strengthened in order to
set them within a wider economic strategy for the regions?
RDAs now receive funding from central Government
in a single funding "pot". What are your views about
this approach and could it be applied to the delivery of work
preparation programmes like New Deal and to the improvement of
The TUC memorandum in paragraphs 79-82 highlights
perceived weaknesses in the co-ordination of employment programmes,
particularly "between programmes run by different departments
aimed at fairly similar client groups" (paragraph 81).
What specifically does the TUC believe should
be done to improve co-ordination between Government Departments
and to avoid unnecessary duplication in employment initiatives?
Finally, it was mentioned in the oral evidence
that there was a "catch-22 situation" with the Rapid
Response Service, inasmuch as the money for the service cannot
be made available until Redundancy Notices are issued. Can you
please let the Committee have the relevant dates in the Vauxhall
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
8 May 2002
Correspondence with the Senior Policy
Officer and the Clerk of the Committee
The impact of economic slowdown on the Government's
Thank you for your letter of 8 May, seeking
written replies to a number of questions that arose when the Committee
took the TUC's oral evidence. Our replies are given below.
Why so many New Deal graduates leave their jobs
before three months.
The first point to be made is that we don't
really know whether the proportion of New Deal graduates whose
jobs are not sustained is high or not. The New Deal is the first
active labour market programme in which a serious effort has been
made to monitor sustained job tenure, and we don't know whether
the current drop out rate of one in four is higher or lower than
previous programmes. For previous programmes there was anecdotal
evidence of the Employment Service counting as positive outcomes
job placements they knew would only last a few weeks, and the
TUC and other organisations repeatedly called on the Government
to monitor sustained job outcomes.
Obviously, one area of concern for unions is
employer abuse of the subsidy, and we have been vigilant for instances
of employers letting New Deal recruits go when the subsidy ends.
As we indicate in paragraphs 21 and 22 of our submission, we do
not at present believe that this is happening, but
we will continue to monitor the programme for any evidence that
this is happening.
Most of the jobs obtained by New Deal graduates
are entry-level jobs, with fairly low pay. Hales et al surveyed
employers between September 1999 and January 2000, and found that
median gross starting hourly wages were at £3.50 for NDYP.
this time the national minimum wage for young people and trainees
was £3.00. It would not be surprising if there were to be
a significant group of graduates who move on to new jobs quite
There has been a high proportion of participants
who are not job-ready, or who have problems that would be likely
to have an impact on their ability to stay in employment. found
Hales et al found: 
23 per cent of those in subsidised
jobs had no qualifications;
just 36 per cent had previous experience
of the same or similar tasks or the same type of employer, while
15 per cent had no work experience whatsoever;
27 per cent had been unemployed for
more than a year;
11 per cent were disabled; and
10 per cent had literacy problems.
There could be a number of reasons for this.
One possibility is that participants who are not really job-ready
have been referred to vacancies because, as unemployment has fallen,
so more job ready young unemployed people have found work before
they become eligible for the New Deal, and the proportion of not-job-ready
participants has risen. There may also be a problem with PAs'
assessments of clients.
In 1998 the New Deal Task Force reported
on the problems faced by the most disadvantaged participants,
making a number of recommendations:
Improved case management:
Specialist case management for the
most disadvantaged young people.
Intensified Gateway services, including
They should also have continuing
access to the specialist support while they are on options and
in the follow-through period.
Licensed independent New Deal entry
points as an alternative to Jobcentres.
Pilots on bringing into the New Deal
disadvantaged young people who are not on benefit.
Pilot programmes of in-work support
for employers and young people.
Some recommendations have been acted uponsuch
as tasters and post-placement supportbut others were rejected.
Another Task Force working group, in 1999 looked at the problem
from the employer's point of view. Again,
some recommendations have been acted upon, but others have not
a more intensive Gateway for those
who are not job ready;
specialist support during options;
more flexibility about sequencing,
combining and the length of options for the most disadvantaged
not referring participants to jobs
unless they can meet employers' specifications;
an emphasis on basic skills, interpersonal/communication
skills and "soft skills";
managing Personal Advisers so they
understand employers' requirements, brief participants on what
to expect from the job; and maintain communication with the employer;
work on industries and occupations
likely to grow;
develop sectoral gateways;
use sponsors for the FTET, ETF and
VS options to make them more relevant to local employers;
more manageable caseloads for Personal
Why different options have different success rates
In our view, the key difference is between the
subsidised employment option and the others. As we indicate in
paragraph 18 of our submission, this is the only option with over
50 per cent of leavers leaving for subsidised employment.
They key difference between this option and
the others is that this is the only option in which participants
are paid a real wage, rather than "benefits plus". This
is an important issue: a major study of employers' attitudes,
that it is important for unemployed people to stay in touch with
a "workplace-like culture" as employers are particularly
likely to be concerned about the deterioration of work disciplines
when considering recruiting unemployed people. Recruiters are
more likely to take experience work experience seriously if participants
have been paid a wage. Other work experience programmes will be
seen as "make work", and will not add lustre to a CV.
Unemployed people also take "real jobs"
more seriously than "make work." Early focus-group research
for the DfEE found that the fact the employment option would offer
the going rate was "a key appeal," crucially
discriminating it from past schemes, while benefit plus
was widely seen as "exploitative/punitive and reminiscent
of past schemes"
This has been an issue since the first Pathfinders
early investigation into what participants want found: 
In the Gateway, there was "a
marked preference" for the subsidised employment option (together
Later on, "Individuals were
enthusiastic about joining this option. It was felt to offer:
long-term employment prospects, the status of being employed,
and was perceived as a move from unemployment to `real work.'"
The Voluntary Sector Option "was
greeted with less enthusiasm than either F.T.E.T. or subsidised
employment. It was not the first choice of some and others had
felt `pushed into it', experiences which added to existing negative
views . . ." Work on this option "was generally described
as monotonous and repetitive" and "training was widely
criticised . . . as very limited, or, in some cases, totally absent."
Some participants "felt they were not receiving adequate
pay for the work which they were undertaking."
"A series of case studies conducted after
the national rollout in April 1998 found that the Environment
Task Force, in particular, had a high proportion of participants
who had been told to join, rather than volunteering, (and a high
proportion of participants with severe problems.) It
is important not to over-state the extent of dissatisfaction with
New Deal options. The most extensive survey so far of young people's
views of the New Deal
found that, of those on an Option, 87 per cent were satisfied
with it. This survey, however, also found that satisfaction was
highest for the employment option, and lowest for the Environmental
The sense that some options are more popular
than others is confirmed by the figures for sanctions relating
to New Deal options: 
|Full-time education or training||23.4%
|Voluntary sector ||25.6%
|Environmental Task Force||44.0%
Why the subsidised employment option was much less popular
As indicated above, this option was not less popular with
participants. The important question is therefore why it has been
less popular with employers.
The high proportion of participants who are not job-ready
is not only likely to affected their ability to keep jobs, it
is also likely to have affected employers' perceptions of New
Deal. Hales et al, for instance, found that, when employers were
asked for their views, 65 per cent said their New Deal recruits
had problems with health, ability or social skills. This
confirmed earlier research, which
looked at the NDYP client group, and found:
21 per cent had no qualifications;
43 per cent said they had been "mainly unemployed,"
and a further 28 per cent had never had a job;
just 10 per cent said they had "mainly had
We believe that there is room significantly to expand take
up of the employment subsidy in the public sector. The Local Government
National Training Organisation's 2001 New Deal survey, for instance,
showed just 1,639 people being employed or trained through the
New Deal programmes by local authorities. If
we look at the New Deal monitoring data for December 2001, we
see that local authorities accounted for just 9.1 per cent of
NDYP subsidised jobs. It is worth bearing in mind that, when the
New Deal was being designed there was a suggestion that the employment
subsidy might be limited to private sector employers. After a
great deal of lobbying, the public sector was allowed to participate,
provided the percentage of subsidised jobs in the public sector
did not exceed 25 per cent!
Why the percentages in paragraph 21 of our submission do not
total 100 per cent
Some participants were dismissed for more than one reason,
and I apologise for the fact that our submission did not make
What should be done about the problem of people being sent
on the employment option before they are job-ready.
Of course, a majority subsidised employment option graduates
are job-ready, and, as indicated above, a proportion of
those who do not sustain their employment will be moving on to
better jobs. Nonetheless, the proportion who lose their jobs is
clearly too high. The list of reasons for dismissal in Hales et
al is very suggestive:
poor attendance 63 per cent;
insufficient quality of work 34 per cent;
disobedience 16 per cent;
dishonesty 11 per cent; and
other reasons 19 per cent.
These are classic indicators of lack of "soft skills",
young people who do not understand what the world of work is about.
That is why the TUC has a great deal of sympathy with employers'
complaints that Jobcentres sometimes either fail to identify participants
who are not yet ready for employment, or do not succeed in getting
them ready. Winterbotham et al found
in 2001 that employers said they wanted to see "improved
screening of New Deal candidates that they are sent."
Some of the New Deal Task Force recommendations reported
above in paragraph 1 could make a difference, and the Government
has responded with some important measures, such as the Gateway
courses. Other recommendations have not yet been fully implemented:
during the Gateway, improved case management,
including specialist case management for the most disadvantaged
during the Gateway, an emphasis on basic skills,
interpersonal/communication skills and "soft skills";
during the option, continuing access to specialist
during and after the option, more flexibility
about sequencing, combining and the length of options.
However, it is worth remembering that one of the reasons
employers are given a subsidy and help with training costs is
to compensate them for the fact that these recruits will not be
quite as job-ready as other young people. The measures listed
above should go hand-in-hand with a gentle reminder to employers
that they are expected to do something in return for their subsidy.
Why we believe that sanctions are disproportionately applied
to certain groups of claimants
In paragraph 35 of our submission we refer to a Government
study. This study
reported that, under the pre-New Deal regime, JSA sanctions were
disproportionately likely to be applied to ethnic minority claimants,
people with caring responsibilities, and those with health problems.
There are good grounds for expecting there to be a similar
problem in New Deal sanctioning. We know that, as reported in
our answer to question 2, participants in the work experience
optionsand especially ETFare disproportionately
likely to be sanctioned. The Environmental Task Force and Voluntary
Sector options are the least popular, and
therefore most likely to be entered by those with no alternatives.
The Tavistock Institute researchers who looked at the impact
of NDYP noted that the Environmental Task Force was being relied
on by Personal Advisers working with participants who faced severe
disadvantages in getting a jobsuch as those with caring
responsibilities or health problems. Several
reports have found that the most disadvantaged New Deal participants
are those most dissatisfied with it, which
would provide a motive for leaving, failing to attend or not taking
up an option, and thus becoming liable to a sanction.
Admittedly, this is all circumstantial, but it is fairly
Our views on other forms of pressure in encouraging people
It is worth remembering that, in this story, unemployed people
are the victims, not the villains. Study after study of
unemployed people has found that a large majority want jobs, and
do not have to be encouraged into employment. The
evaluation of Jobseeker's Allowance is particularly valuable,
based as it is on a cohort survey of 5,000 people claiming unemployment
benefits before the introduction of JSA. As this survey looked
at the cohort of claimants at two points in time, it provided
a clear insight into whether unemployed people do, as is often
assumed, become demotivated over time and therefore require added
incentives to look for work.
"The second survey interview confirmed that the vast
majority of claimants were steadfastly committed to finding work
and actively seeking it. In aggregate, job-search at the time
of the second interview remained at the same level as it had been
six months earlier, and there was no evidence of widespread indolence
or people becoming enamoured with life on benefit".
Furthermore, the survey found that "while respondents
admitted to periods of disillusionment during which they ceased
making job applications, there was no evidence at all of a systematic
decline in the commitment to find work as their time on benefit
The assumption that unemployed people have to be forced into
jobs or programmes that will make them more employable is wrong
in principle. We also believe that reliance on benefit sanctions
tends to lower the quality of active labour market programmes.
Denying the consumers of these programmes the right of "exit",
without any compensating "voice" rights, removes the
most effective pressure on providers to run programmes that actually
succeed at moving people into employment.
None of this is to argue that unemployed people should be passive
recipients of benefits, merely waiting for a job to come along,
and the TUC supports the idea of "no fifth option."
Offering unemployed people a choice of options to help
them back to employmentbut insisting that they do actually
have to choose one of themseems to us to be a fair balance
of rights and responsibilities.
We believe, however, that the "three strikes and you're out"
26 weeks sanctions go too far. In particular, we are concerned
that, without complementary extra provision for the hardest to
helpwho are least likely to have an effective choice of
options - they will penalise the vulnerable, rather than those
who are playing the system.
What additional measures the Government should take to address
the race gap
One reason why the TUC is sympathetic to the Government in
its attempt to address this issue is that it is such a difficult
problem. We know that it is not caused by Jobcentre Plus staff
discriminating against black and ethnic minority participants,
as the Government's monitoring data shows that participants from
ethnic minority groups are not being referred to fewer job opportunities
than white participants. Furthermore, the Government is already:
Carrying out ethnic monitoring of the New Deal.
Identifying those New Deal delivery units that
are under-performing, and seeking to bring them up to the level
of other units in which the race gap is less apparent.
Instructing all Jobcentres to address barriers
due to ethnicity.
Providing training and information for Jobcentre
Working with the New Deal Task Force's Minority
Ethnic Advisory Group.
Contracting with ethnic minority voluntary organisations
to provide expertise in areas where ethnic inequality is a particularly
These measures reflect most of the suggestions made by the
Commission for Racial Equality when New Deal was being designed.
The CRE also recommended that there should be targets for representation
of ethnic minority young people, and this would be a possible
candidate for additional action. Some examples of best practice,
developed at a local level, may also be worth imitating:
In Coventry, to build up links to the community,
"Gateway centres" were established in city centre Jobcentres
and in housing estates outside the city. 
In Bolton, an Ethnic Minority Forum, representing
15 different organisations, was established. 
In Portsmouth, an Ethnic Minority Development
Worker was appointed, to help clients with CVs, letter writing,
interviews and confidence building. 
In Harlesden, Local Employment Access Projects
(LEAP) a small non-profit organisation with a 90 per cent black
clientele, developed a recruitment service for local employers
alongside its programme of help for clients with job-winning skills.
Clients' interviews are followed by debriefings for both
the employer and the client, and LEAP led the way in offering
clients post-placement support. 
Whether the Government should target particular areas with
extra resources in order to raise employment rates amongst black
and ethnic minorities
Of course, this is something the Government is already doing,
primarily through Employment Zones and Action Teams. In the past,
geographically-focused policies have been criticised by anti-poverty
campaigners, on the grounds that most very poor people did not
live in the areas targeted, and that most of the people who did
live there were not the very poor. That criticism, however, missed
out the racial dimension of this issue, and the EZs and Action
Teams may well prove to be effective at targeting black and ethnic
minority poverty and unemployment.
The Government is particularly proud of Employment Zones,
set up in 15 unemployment blackspots. By
the end of July 2001, 13,917 participants (53 per cent of leavers)
had secured jobs, and
there are no differences between outcomes for men and women or
between black and white participants.
Towards the end of 2000, 40 Action Teams for Jobs were established
in areas with high levels of unemployment and large ethnic minority
populations. With a budget for 2001-04 of £122 million, their
initial brief is to run till March 2004, and the initial results
are very good, with 13,500 participants helped into work in the
first year and the
Government is already very enthusiastic about them.
The role of Jobcentre Plus
The TUC welcomed the creation of Jobcentre Pluscombining
benefit delivery and labour market reintegration opens the doors
to new synergies, and the removal of labour market obstacles in
the way of socially excluded people. A key task for the new agency
will be to provide local managers with access to sufficient discretionary
funds for the outreach and community liaison operations that can
make a great deal of difference to progress on this issue.
Co-ordination, Regional Employment and Industrial Policy
The TUC is currently preparing a policy paper on the RDAs
and economic/employment strategies at the regional level that
will flesh out the sections of our submission dealing with your
Committee's questions. Unfortunately, this will not be published
till the summer. At present our most detailed policy proposals
can be found in our submission to the Committee, and our Budget
Submission to the Chancellor.
I have enclosed a copy of the Submission,
and would particularly draw your attention to our proposals for
increased funding for the RDAs in Section Three.
Finally you asked about the Rapid Response Service and Vauxhall
Luton. The relevant dates were:
12 December 2000
|Closure of car production at Luton announced by GM
|13 December 2000||Vauxhall Luton Partnership established
|18 October 2001||Rapid Response Fund bid submitted
|23 November 2001||RRF bid approved
During the period between December and October
dialogue between the DTI and Vauxhall Luton Partnership advised
that a RRF application could not be considered because GM had
not issued redundancy notices.
GM, however, refused to issue redundancy notices
as they were insistent that this was not a redundancy situationno
workers would be made compulsorily redundant (also a union objective.)
The company was also concerned not to disrupt
production/productivity. There was a strong feeling among the
workforce that the closure would not happen, the company was concerned
that workers taking time off for interviews etc would damage productivity.
The Rapid Response Fund money was eventually very
useful, but would have been most useful at the very beginning,
enabling other funding sources to be assembled. The training courses
provided with RRF money have necessarily overrun the closure,
which means that some participants have dropped out, probably
for good material reasons.
Hence, the Rapid Response Fund was not Rapid (taking nearly
a year) and widely agreed objectives of assisting individual workers
and local businesses were frustrated through what was a technicalitya
clear example of process obstructing performance.
I hope these replies are helpful.
14 May 2002
This was also the conclusion of one of the early evaluation reports
on the New Deal (New Deal for young unemployed people: a good
deal for employers? Snape, Keegan and George, SCPR for ES,
December 1998), which found that There was little evidence
of employers intending to use New Deal to subsidise their wage
bill by continually recruiting and laying off New Deal recruits-all
but one employer were offering permanent jobs. Back
New Deal for Young People and long-term Unemployed: Survey
of Employers, Jon Hales, Debbie Collins, Chris Hasluck and
Steve Woodland, National Centre for Social Research, ES Report
58, September 2000, p 63. Back
Op cit, cap 4, passim. Back
Meeting the Needs of Disadvantaged Young People, report
of a committee chaired by Victor Adebowale. Back
How to increase job retention by New Deal clients-report
of a Task Force committee chaired by Stephanie Monk, 1999. Back
Employers, Recruitment and the Unemployed, Atkinson J,
Giles L & Meager N, Institute for Employment Studies, 1996. Back
This has concerned everyone involved in the programme, since its
first days. The New Deal Specification Document for bidders,
written in 1998, said that providers of the VS and ETF options
had to offer "high quality work placements" offering
"worthwhile and attractive opportunities," and specified
that they must not be capable of being "construed as `make-work'". Back
The New Deal for Young People: The Pathfinder Options, K
Woodfield, R Turner and J Mitchie, Employment Service report ESR25,
based on interviews with 107 participants in four Pathfinder areas
in late 1998 and early 1999. Back
The New Deal for Young People: National Case Studies of Delivery
and Impact, ESR 30, Tavistock Institute for Employment Service,
November 1999. Back
National Survey of Participants, A Bryson, G Knight and
M White, PSI, ES report ESR44, March 2000, based on interviews
in Spring 1999 with 6,010 participants who joined the programme
in Autumn 1998. Back
Sanction figures taken from the Analysis of Sector Decision
Making for quarter ending 31-12-01, Employment Service, 2002,
p 3. Figures for the proportion of participants in options in
September 2000, taken from the monitoring data for December 2001,
table 2. Back
Op cit, p 55. Back
Young Unemployed People, ESR19, Walker et al, July
Local Government Employment Digest, local government Employers'
Organisation, March 2002. Back
Evaluation of New Deal for Long Term Unemployed People: Enhanced
National Programme, by Mark Winterbotham, Lorna Adams and
Chris Hasluck, ES report 82. Back
JSA Evaluation: Qualitative Research on Disallowed and Disqualified
Claimants, J Vincent and B Dobson, DfEE Research report 15,
In 2000, 82 per cent of those on the full-time education and training
option said it was what they really wanted to do, compared with
64 per cent of those on the employment option, 59 per cent of
those on the Voluntary Sector Option and 46 per cent of those
in the Environmental Task Force. National Survey of Participants,
A Bryson, G Knight and M White, PSI, ES report ESR44, March 2000. Back
The New Deal for Young People: National Case Studies of Delivery
and Impact, ESR 30, Tavistock Institute for Employment Service,
November 1999. Back
The National Survey of Participants, for instance, found
that, while 47 per cent of participants were completely or very
satisfied with their PAs, people from disadvantaged groups were
least satisfied. Similarly, while nearly two thirds believed that
the New Deal was very or fairly useful, those from disadvantaged
groups were least likely to think this. Back
See, for instance, "Unemployment and Attitudes to Work",
D Gallie and C Vogler, in Social Change and the Experience
of Unemployment, Gallie, Marsh and Vogler (eds) 1994. Living
Standards During Unemployment, P Heady and M Smyth, HMSO,
1989. Unemployment and Health, P Taylor, Campaign for Work,
September 1991. Motivation, Unemployment and Employment Department
Programmes, M Banks and J Davies, Employment Department, 1991.
"Unhappiness, Unemployment and Economic Policy". A Oswald
and A Clark, The Economic Journal, Summer 1994. Employment
Service National Customer Satisfaction Survey, ES Research
and Evaluation Report, 1994. Employment in Britain, Employment
Department and Employment Service, 1992. "The Employment
Commitment of Unemployed People", Gallie et al, in
Unemployment and Public Policy in a Changing Labour Market,
ed M White, PSI, 1994. Incomes In and Out of Work, Garman
et al, DSS, 1992. Tackling Unemployment: A Business
Agenda, CBI, November 1994. Back
Unemployment and Jobseeking Before Jobseeker's Allowance,
S McKay et al, DSS Research Report 73, 1997. Around two
thirds of the sample had already been unemployed for some time
before the first interview took place. Back
From Policy to Practice, Employment Service, 1999, pp 4-5. Back
Ibid, p 40. Back
Ibid, p 42. Back
Reported in Improving the Employment Prospects of Low Income
Jobseekers, Chris Evans et al, New Deal Task Force,
DfEE Press Release 98/00, 8-3-00. Back
Employment Zones website [http://www.dfee.gov.uk/employmentzones/results.cfm]
on 20/11/01. Back
DWP Press Release, 15 October. Back
TUC Budget submission 2002-not printed.