---

Work Programme

We thought carefully about that. The hon. Lady makes a fair point. The question is whether to rule out a situation where a provider finds a three-month contract for somebody who has been out of work for three or four years, takes them back to find another job at the end of that contract, having clearly taken them a step further towards long-term employment, and does not receive any reward for it. There was a problem with the structure of the previous contracts. The flexible new deal, which was partially up and running when we took office, is the only example we have that from period. It still had a number of the constraints that applied to the previous new deal, so it was not a complete black-box approach. It had adopted a payment scheme after three months and six months. We took two decisions: one was to extend the payment period dramatically, so that it could go up to 18 months. That makes it difficult for a company to maximise its return by providing lots of little jobs over an 18-month period. However, it does reflect and respect the fact that in some cases there may be a real reason for finding somebody a three-month or two-month placement or whatever in employment, and then taking them back and finishing the job. At the end of the flexible new deal, the person concerned would not go back to the provider for the work to continue; that was the end for them. Providers are clearly responsible for that individual for a two-year period. They cannot earn a success fee until that person has had six months’ employment, but that success fee is still only 35% of what they could potentially eventually earn, if they succeed in getting someone into sustainable employment over the 18-month period. We thought that was the right balance.