While welcoming George Osborne’s emphasis this week on raising employment, I have some caveats about his target – to have the highest employment rate in the G7. This isn’t hugely challenging. Those in employment currently amount to 71.2 per cent of the UK population of working age, well ahead of Italy (55.5 per cent), France (64.1 per cent) and even the USA (67.4 per cent). Germany, at 73.5 per cent, is the current table-topper and the one Mr Osborne aims to overtake. Aggregates like this, though, are dodgy to interpret and are affected by differences in age cohort size and other factors. For example, the rising numbers of younger women in the workforce with degrees will almost certainly boost employment rates in the next few years, as will immigration flows and the increase in the state pension age.

One million people on zero hours contracts, scream the media - quoting figures released today by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. This is at odds with recent ONS figures that put the number on these contracts closer to 200,000. Zero-hours contracts have been around for many years in the retail and hospitality industries, where demand fluctuates from month to month and even day to day. Their use has spread recently to other sectors including healthcare (with up to 100,000 such contracts, including last year as many as 800 consultants), education and public services. In response to the media storm, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is conducting a review. Why has the use of these contracts grown? It is easy to see them as the result of unscrupulous employers trying to squeeze out extra profits at the expense of workers.

As we move towards the budget we will be hearing more and more warnings about the impact of further cuts in public sector employment. One line, pursued repeatedly by the TUC and the Fawcett Society since Mr Osborne's first budget, is that such cuts will particularly impact on women. As the public sector employs more women than men, it is argued, the cuts mean higher unemployment for women. It has even been suggested that an Impact Assessment along these lines would conclude that public sector cuts breach the Equality Act. I don't know about that. But it is worth pointing out how difficult it is to assess the impact of public sector 'cuts' on unemployment. First, the definition of the public sector (which includes commercial banks which the government has taken over, but does not include universities) is constantly shifting as work is contracted out or taken back in house.