Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witness (Questions 319-339)




  319. Minister, may I welcome you to our session. You are the fifth of six ministers coming before the Committee, so you are coming in as tail end batter as it were.

  (John Healey) You are working your way down them.

  320. We are very much looking forward to this session. You will know the purpose of these sessions is really to get to know ministers as close as we can to the start of the Parliament, to get the relationship with the Department on a new basis, so we rather thought, given the Government is quite keen on baseline assessments and performance reviews for teachers and other education staff, it was the responsibility of this Committee to do something in parallel with the ministerial team. I think the word is coming back that ministers seem to enjoy it, in a fashion, and we certainly do, and we are learning a lot. The way we approach this is we invite you as the minister to open the batting with a short statement.
  (John Healey) Chairman, thank you very much. I must say it is good to be with the Committee again, albeit on the other side of the table from before. By way of opening, if I may, and I appreciate the invitation to join the Committee, can I say in a sense the challenge for me was defined by one of our colleagues a few days after I was appointed. It was in the tea room and one of our colleagues came up to me and said, "John, I hear you've got a job", I said, "Yes, I am very lucky". "What is it?", he said, and I said, "It is adult skills", and he said, "That's very interesting" in a way which was entirely devoid of conviction and with an expression on his face such that he was desperate to find somebody else to talk to. So I think my principal job as Minister for Adult Skills is, if I cannot convince people to see adult skills as interesting, I have to get them to see it as important. By way of introduction, perhaps I can say a few things about how I approach the job rather than run through my particular areas of responsibility and, if you like, the general perspective I try to bring to every policy area. The first starting point for me is, if adult skills is simply seen as an education issue of concern to the Department for Education and Skills, we will fail to have the impact, we will fail to have the importance, we need attached to this policy area. Skills, for me, is also a productivity issue, it is also an employability issue, a business competitiveness issue, an economic regeneration issue, and it is also a social exclusion issue. You can begin to see, Chairman, in some of the policy decisions and developments I have taken in the first five months, some of those hallmarks, so the proposals which were launched in October for the reform of the Sector Skills network, the new Sector Skills Councils, very much bear that stamp. The Performance and Innovation Unit's report to the Prime Minister, which was published yesterday, for which I am sponsoring minister, very much makes those links as well. Indeed the eight pages of the Pre-Budget Report which was published yesterday dealing with skills, located it firmly in the chapter about meeting the productivity challenge. So that is the first thing. The second thing is this, in the DfES we have a very tight ministerial team, a very clear focused team, I think a consolidation in fact from the previous days of the Department for Education and Employment, and helpfully so. Within the Department we are very conscious of strengthening the links between the different parts of the education system, very conscious of the way that activities in one part of the system can reinforce what we are trying to do in others, and smooth the way for learners if we are successful. So at one end of the spectrum, the commitment to Sure Start is a way of giving kids from the poorest areas and the poorest families a proper start when they get to primary, at the other end, the contribution to further education as a way of achieving our ambitions for higher education is absolutely essential, and in the middle, at the heart of it, particularly in relation to my areas of responsibility, the proposals we are developing for the reform of the 14 to 19 curriculum will give a reinforced value to vocational learning, more opportunities for learners to move through the system. But beyond the Department, and this is my second point, part of my job is also to clear the ground for other departments. I have one of the most junior jobs in Government but I believe the case for skills is so strong that I do not expect this to stop me from being able to carry arguments with other ministerial colleagues, and I do not expect it to stop me forging very good working links with other colleagues in other departments. So, for instance, the successor to the New Deal Taskforce, the National Employment Panel, has set up for the first time a sub-group reporting to me which deals with skills. The union learning representatives will be given a statutory underpinning as part of the DTI's Employment Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House yesterday. Adult basic skills is an area where joint work is not just an advantage, it is essential. Adult basic skills was the number one of 25 pledges we made in the manifesto in June, it is and will remain my number one priority as a minister. I have responsibility for meeting that target but restricted control over being able to do so, because delivering that will depend on what the new Job Centre Plus does, the Prison Service does, the Army does, the NHS does. So working links in that area are very important for my brief. Third, if it is the case, Chairman, that skills do impact on productivity, do have a crucial influence on employability, it seems to me the needs and demands of individuals and particularly employers must drive and define provision much more powerfully than they have in the past. This is a case, for instance, made very clearly in the PIU Report. It underpins our policy initiative on Centres of Vocational Excellence in further education; it underpins the proposals and the attention we are giving to reforming occupational standards and qualifications; it informed the Individual Learning Accounts policy if not the system of delivering it, and it informed also the learndirect, bite-size learning, to try to tempt people into continuing learning ICT skills. Fourth and finally, I have a two-fold concern, first for the quality of learning and secondly for equity of access. I try to make those two things the touchstone of everything I do in every policy area, whether it is ICT, workforce development, adult basic skills or indeed further education. If I may end this short opening statement, Chairman, just by mentioning the Individual Learning Accounts. I am the minister who is now responsible for Individual Learning Accounts. As members of the Committee will know and recall, we took the decision and announced the decision to withdraw the scheme in England on 24 October. A difficult decision but one we had to take in the interest of individual learners who were putting money into the ILA system, and also to protect the proper use of public funds. On Wednesday last week the Department received new information about serious and sustained allegations of fraud and theft. On Thursday last week our special investigations unit confirmed the strength of those allegations. On Friday, 23 November, Estelle Morris and I were informed during the afternoon, we had a video conference meeting, we called in the police, we closed the programme with immediate effect from 6.30 on Friday evening and we confirmed that in a press notice at about 6 o'clock that evening. I had written to all MPs when we decided to withdraw the ILA programme at the end of October because with 2.5 million ILA account holders there is obviously a very strong constituency interest for us all, so yesterday I wrote again to explain the latest move. The investigations are being conducted by the Durham Police, working very closely with our own special investigations unit, and with Capita, the company running the ILA processing centre, and with the national police high-tech crime unit. Chairman, I hope you will understand I cannot give you any further details about the investigations without risking compromising the conduct of those investigations. I did want the Committee, however, to know the latest position and I hope members will find that useful.

  321. Minister, we have the ability to go into private session in this Committee but we do not intend to do that because in our pre-public session we decided we would press you on a range of questions about ILAs but with no specific reference which could be of any embarrassment, so my intention would not be to go into private session. It is more general issues, non-specific issues, we will be probing. Of course, the Committee remembers this very well because it was the first session of these sessions when the Secretary of State came here and came a little late because of problems with the ILAs. Thank you for that introduction, and we want to get started. Minister, I think you have children?
  (John Healey) I do have one, aged 6½, a little lad called Alex.

  322. You come from a very privileged educational background at Cambridge University and so on. One of the things I was going to probe is, does that give you cause for such-self-satisfaction you are not doing any continuous learning yourself? Are you training to do anything else in your professional life at the moment, or is that it?
  (John Healey) I am continuously learning. I am not training towards any sort of qualification but I am only five months into the job so you would expect me to be learning as I go along, largely making it up as I go along! I am not pursuing formal learning towards any formal qualification. I would like to, I do not have the time at present. I used to be an Open University Business School tutor, part time, so I know the value that some of that type of learning can bring to people in their everyday work if they can find the time and the capacity to do so.

  Chairman: I remember the Prime Minister confessed to the nation that he had very poor IT skills and declared he was going to learn. I do not know if you are keeping an eye on him and whether he has passed the European computer driver's licence or any other qualification but it might be a good example to us all if you could check on that and perhaps look at some of your colleagues in this Parliament in terms of the levels of skills.

  Mr Pollard: Individual ILAs might be appropriate, Chairman.


  323. Absolutely.
  (John Healey) Perhaps I can take that as a representation for the redesign work we are doing on the ILA policy.

  324. You take the point about leading by example, and in your particular role it might be something you could consider. However, let us press on. Your ministerial responsibilities are pretty sharp but where do you overlap with the Minister for Higher Education and with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who met us last week? There are elements of your job which overlap, how do you handle those and what are they?
  (John Healey) The principal areas of overlap with the Minister of State really rest within the further education field and the Learning and Skills Councils. Much of the work in this field we conduct together. I tend to lead in the Commons on issues which relate to further education and Margaret in the Commons tends to lead on issues relating to higher education. With the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ivan Lewis, he has clear areas of the education system which I have a strong policy interest in and so does he, and they tend to be in the 16 to 19 age, including provisions such as modern apprenticeships, which she leads on and I am interested in, further education, sixth form colleges which we both have an interest in, and then there is also an overlap with Baroness Ashton where jointly we do much of the work on the Department's information communications technology strategy.

  325. I now want to clear the way, if you like, by looking at some of the issues surrounding the Individual Learning Accounts. It was with a certain surprise when I looked at the Cabinet Office PIU Report, In Demand: Adult Skills in the 21st century, and turned to paragraph 19 where it says, "There are a number of different mechanisms which could be effective at increasing individual's demand; for example, placing more purchasing power in the hands of individuals. One option would be a form of individual learning account." In light of that, can you explain to us really the story of the suspension? When the Secretary of State came to this Committee, she said it was being suspended or frozen, you have used very different language and the language has changed over the weeks. It was being frozen, suspended, now it is at an end. There were two elements mentioned. The main one was over-subscription, too much demand and someone had said, "Hey, we must control this level of expenditure." You were PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and maybe it is of some concern to this Committee there are now so many former Treasury people in the Department for Education and Skills, that may be a comfort or a worry, I do not know—so you will know exactly how the system works in that regard. Was it the Treasury saying, "Hey, this is getting out of hand"? As time went on, there was more suggestion it was really a fraud element. Which was it?
  (John Healey) It was not the Treasury saying the spending was getting out of hand, it was a decision that Estelle Morris and I took within the DfES and informed colleagues within Government, including the Treasury, and it was not a budgetary pressure. It was first and foremost a concern about the misuse of the ILA system and the danger at one end of that of a degree of fraud. So therefore it was a move first of all to protect the interests of individuals who were also investing some of their own money in the ILA support for learning, and it was principally to protect the proper use of public funds.

  326. Minister, I am sorry, but if you look at the transcript of the words given to us by the Secretary of State, this Committee—certainly I and members of the Committee—got the very strong message from her that it was about demand, not the fraud. The fraud element came much later as the situation unravelled.
  (John Healey) It is true that this was a scheme which was more successful than any of us anticipated. We had a target to try and get 1 million ILA accounts open by March next year, and we hit that a year early. By the end of October there were 2.5 million ILA account holders, so it had exceeded its capacity and exceeded our expectations. The problem, however, was this, that from this summer onwards we started to get an increasing number of complaints, and our concerns about the operation of a small minority of learning providers registered under the scheme became heightened. We took a number of steps from July onwards to try and tighten up the operation of the scheme and the rules by which the learning providers had to operate. We were not able to do that sufficiently to stamp out what we saw as the problem of misuse. There were increasing volumes of business and therefore payments from the public purse as well, but our principal concern was that we did not have within the system the capacity to stamp out what was increasing evidence of misuse by a small minority of providers. That was the reason we took the step to withdraw the scheme as of 7 December. I think if you check the public statements, if you check the letter I wrote to Members of Parliament, there was no doubt about it, we were withdrawing the scheme as of 7 December.

  327. Minister, does that mean from what you have just said, once you have sorted out what you believe is the misuse or fraud, the scheme will come back on stream?
  (John Healey) What it means is that there has been a lot which is important and innovative about the Individual Learning Accounts, they have unleashed a huge appetite for learning, which is evidenced by both the number of accounts opened and the way in which they have been used. They have stimulated adult learning, including amongst those with no qualifications (16 per cent of those who have used ILAs have no qualifications at all) and they have encouraged people to learn (50 per cent of the people who have used ILAs say they would not have been able to pay for their training if it had not been for the ILA), so in policy terms the ILA has been a way of stimulating individual interest and investment in learning and also stimulating business and provision from learning providers. That is the reason why you see in the PIU Report the confirmation that here is a mechanism which really has proved in policy terms to be very successful. We had to withdraw the scheme, we made that decision for England. Northern Ireland decided to take the same steps as us, in Scotland they have continued the scheme and in Wales they have continued the scheme as well beyond that end of October decision we made. Our commitment, because this has been important and it has been innovative, is to reintroduce an ILA-style scheme. We need to redesign it in order to learn the lessons of what has been flawed in the way it has been delivered but also build on what is clearly great potential in this concept. So the commitment to reintroducing a successor scheme is there and that may have led the Committee and others to a position where there was a degree of confusion about whether this was a suspension of the current scheme or whether it was a withdrawal with a commitment that we wanted to reintroduce something that was an ILA-style scheme subsequently when we have been able to do that work.

  328.  What is the ETA of the replacement scheme?
  (John Healey) Frankly, it is too early to be able to tell at the moment. We have started work on the policy design and some of the discussions with, I have to say, a very wide range of organisations who want to see a successor to the ILA programme, but you will understand, particularly in the light of the most recent developments, following that 24 October announcement, much of the attention I have given and the officials have given has been to deal with the managed planned closure of the programme and then of course this more serious problem which arose at the end of last week which meant we had to close down this scheme with immediate effect, in effect two weeks earlier than previously announced or planned.

Mr Pollard

  329. Minister, in my constituency we have a critical shortage of skills, particularly IT skills, and one of the trainers in my constituency, Pitmans, were providing much useful and necessary training using the ILAs which were very, very popular. They are bitter now that has been stopped and it will certainly affect our local economy very quickly and will have a knock-on effect. They believe the form itself, one page, was far too simple. We are all for simplicity but they have suggested going through established providers rather than registered providers might be a way forward. Can you comment on that?
  (John Healey) I am aware of the concerns Pitmans have, they are a franchise group of companies with outlets right across the country. I am also aware they have taken a close interest in Individual Learning Accounts from the start and have made great use of them. They have been a very valuable source for their business, clearly, and the franchisees they have got. Clearly, one of the policy developments we are looking very hard at is whether or not the requirements for registration for learning providers to qualify as an Individual Learning Account learning provider should be different. In Scotland, for instance, they approached it differently from England. They did not set up all the bureaucracy and administration which would have been involved in having an ILA register of providers, what they did was to use the Scottish University for Industry's list and accreditation process for learning providers, and they chose to operate their system slightly differently in that way. Clearly that is something which bears much closer examination as a possible way we could redesign such a scheme in the future.

Mr Turner

  330. I think, Minister, there are two points which I would like to address on this. One is the smokescreen and was that what it was intended to be. You said a moment ago that it was not budgetary pressure, your principal concern was evidence of misuse, and I take it you are referring there to the decisions around 24 October. Yet the press release said the programme had to be suspended as it, ". . . exceeded the Government's expectations in encouraging very large numbers of people to take a new interest in learning, and has quickly expanded beyond its capacity. The Government is also concerned by evidence that some ILAs have been exploited by companies providing poor value for money. To tackle these concerns, the Government has decided to suspend its . . . programme." If you told us that was a smokescreen so the crooks did not know they had been sussed, I might be prepared to believe you, but that is not what you said.
  (John Healey) It is very clear, Mr Turner, there are two elements to the decision. I have already explained those. The principal concern was the number of complaints about evidence of misselling, aggressive marketing, breach of the rules of the ILA scheme, poor quality learning and poor value for money, plus a small element of alleged fraud. We tried a number of moves to tighten up this scheme within the terms in which it was set up, and they included ending the £150 introductory offer at the end of July, new information for ILA account holders, a new learning provider agreement that we introduced over the summer which led to dropping 700 learning providers from our register, stopping the acceptance of new learning provider registrations in September, and stopping also the use of application forms from providers in September as well. That helped to control the situation, but it simply did not stop what we were concerned about, which was principally the evidence of misuse, improper abuse of the ILA system and, from that, associated with the activities of that small minority of learning providers, high volumes of public money were being paid out to those learning providers. So of course there was that dual element but it was in that order, and those dual concerns led us to that decision to withdraw the scheme as of 7 December. In terms of the support for the concept of the scheme itself and a wish to see this scheme succeed, I have to tell you beyond the DfES there was no greater supporter in Government than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury.

  331. Clearly the scheme, this sort of voucher scheme, was a success. I am just wondering why it was the Secretary of State when she came before us, and whoever approved this press release, managed to put these two elements in exactly the reverse order to the ones you have just said are important. My other question is about the damage to private confidence both among providers and among users of the scheme. Obviously you had to take urgent action once you were aware of the details, but what I find difficult to understand is why you were not able at the same time to develop a replacement scheme, why you only now appear to have got to the stage of redesign. Pitmans told us, "I take no pleasure in saying that Pitman Training Group warned officials of these failings even before the launch of the initiative". That was in their letter to the Committee. That authoritative newspaper, the News of the World ran a story on 6 May 2001, the Mirror exposed it on 13 July, and there were continuous stories after that. Obviously you have to investigate whether these allegations are true, but the damage which has been done to the private providers and to the customers stems from your not having taken action to replace the scheme sufficiently quickly. So there are people, frankly, with money invested and no return and they are going to go bust.
  (John Healey) First of all, I welcome the acknowledgement from Mr Turner of the success of the scheme. Secondly, in the run-up to the national launch in September last year, we had a great number of conversations and in fact we had several workshops for training providers from the private sector and others to contribute to the sort of thinking involved in this. It is perfectly true that Mr James O'Brien from Pitmans wrote to us before the scheme was launched and he raised a number of points, including contesting that the cap we wanted to put on the limit for the 80 per cent ICT discount was set too low at £200 and should be £5,000.[1] That was advice we had and that was advice we rejected as it happens. I think it is easy, Chairman, to be wise after the event. There have been one or two newspaper articles. The News of the World has done a particularly good job in exposing some of the small number of providers who have been misusing the scheme over the last few months. I have to say there was not widespread evidence of complaints or problems, there was not a widespread perception that there were difficulties. In fact since the election, before the announcement of the withdrawal of the scheme, there was only one Parliamentary Question about Individual Learning Accounts from members of the Conservative Party and that asked about the number of ILA accounts which had been opened. In terms of providers and the damage to their business, I recognise this is putting some of the business plans of some learning providers under a lot of pressure, but I have to say the decisions those learning providers took to use the ILAs as part of their business planning and their revenue streams was a decision entirely for them. Our principal concern has to be, first, for the public purse and, secondly, our responsibilities to the individual learning providers, and it is to them we owe the first duty. We are not a party to the business decisions any individual learning provider might make based on the ILA scheme. In terms of redesigning the scheme, the other point Mr Turner made, I think it is important to appreciate just how complex and large the operation of this scheme is and to appreciate the number of changes I outlined in the space of a few months since July we made to the operation of the scheme whilst it was running. If it had been possible to redesign it as it was running in a way which would have allowed us to introduce the sort of robust controls we found we needed to deal with this small minority of rogue providers, then we would have done so. It was not possible. That led us to what was a very difficult decision, fully conscious of the consequences there were for individual learners and the learning providers, that we had in England to take the step of withdrawing the scheme, and that is what we did.

  332. In fact of the 6,000 complaints made, 3,000 were made before 31 July 2001, were they not?
  (John Healey) They were. There were 3,096 complaints by 31 July, that was after ten months of running a national scheme, on which there were 1.5 million account holders. Complaints to account holders was in a ratio of 0.19 per cent. It is important also to recognise that proportion of complaints did increase in the months from the summer, and I mentioned that earlier, so that by the end of October we had 2.5 million ILA account holders and the complaints had reached 8,448, which is still a very low proportion in such a large scheme. But the important thing to recognise about the complaints figures is that it was only just over a quarter of those complaints which related to any suggestion of misuse, misselling, abuse of the system. Also in those complaints totals were so-called complaints which might have been about the discount regime, the operation of the ILA Centre, and indeed any other comment or criticism that callers might have made about the scheme. So it is important to get it in proper perspective. Our concern was clearly that the number of complaints was increasing, the concerns about those complaints was increasing, we were unable to stop what we saw as misselling and malpractice by the changes we had made within the terms of the scheme, and that is why we took the decision to withdraw it.

  333. It is not only big training providers which are hit by this, it is small training providers as well, and although of course you are not responsible for the decisions they have taken about investment, it does seem that if you cannot provide consistency then people are not going to make the kind of investment you would like them to make in the future, and you are going to need to be very clear in any new scheme that it does provide confidence for both the provider and the customer.
  (John Healey) I think Mr Turner is absolutely right, the degree of confidence and certainty that we can have as ministers responsible and accountable for this scheme or any scheme in the future is important, and so it must be also for individual learners and providers who are involved. You are absolutely right, if I may say so, it is not just big commercial learning providers who have been hit by this, there may be effects on some of our UK on-line centres and we are looking at that at the moment. There will be effects also on the work of union learning representatives and union learning funds, and we are at the moment trying to analyse that, and there will be an effect also on certain college programmes and smaller learning providers, as you say. As I have said earlier, Chairman, it was a very difficult decision, and one I really regretted having to make because what was in very large part a very successful scheme, benefiting both learners and providers, was undermined eventually and brought down by the actions of what remains a minority of those registered as learning providers who were simply abusing the system we had set up.

  Chairman: Minister, I think the Committee has yet to be convinced about that. David Chaytor.

Mr Chaytor

  334. Minister, you said that 60 per cent of the 2.5 million ILAs were from people who would not have otherwise been able to afford their training and, therefore, at least 40 per cent of ILAs were people who would have been buying that training anyway. Now, at £150 per ILA my calculation is £150 million was given to people who would have been prepared to pay for their training anyway. How does that fit with the Government's attempt to redirect their resources into widening participation?
  (John Healey) Two things, Mr Chaytor, if I may say so. First of all, to think back about 15 months and try and remember just how radical, just how innovative, just how new this approach was. It was something we simply did not know how it might work and what its impact would be. That was behind the decision to make it a universal offer by way of introduction. The speed with which we hit our one million ILA account holders target I think is testimony to that.

  335. In retrospect, would it not have been tighter to limit it to those with no more than level two qualifications already?
  (John Healey) The wisdom of hindsight is wonderful and I think the important point about this is—

  336. This was pointed out to the Secretary of State at the time.
  (John Healey) If I may say so, having seen the programme operating, having been able to analyse the take-up and the use people made of their individual learning accounts, clearly one of the factors for us now in looking to redesign a successor scheme is the question of whether or not it remains a universal offer or whether, indeed, it should be more tightly targeted on the groups of learners, potential learners, that we are most concerned about. Mr Chaytor is absolutely right, there are those who tend to be broadly qualified already, those who do not have access to training and have not taken training in recent times, those who in other ways are disadvantaged and find it difficult to get on that learning ladder, if you like.

  337. What are the lessons to be learnt about the regulation of the quality of private training providers and also the monitoring of the capacity of private contractors, such as Capita, to deliver public services in this way?
  (John Healey) I do not draw any lessons at this stage about the question of the capacity of contractors like Capita to deliver such a complex large scale programme. It is something that we will need to look at in terms of designing and then putting in place the delivery frameworks for future schemes. In terms of the quality of learning provision, we have discussed already in relation to the question raised by Mr Pollard the issue of whether or not registered learning providers for an ILA style scheme might best be accredited in some way and any system of accreditation that is being developed now or is in place comes with a system also—whether it is run by the Learning and Skills Council or by the University for Industry for instance—of quality assurance. Particularly with the new inspection regimes that we are putting in place, the combination of post 16 Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, these are inspection regimes which will help us, first of all, guarantee quality and then improve quality right across the range, including private sector work based learning providers who are involved in training that draws down public money. I am pretty confident that we have got in place, and it is fairly recent, it has to be said, inspection regimes and possible accreditation systems that would allow us, if we chose to do so, to fit in an ILA system.

  338. Therefore, the final question is, in the redesigning of the ILA system will you choose to require accreditation of private training providers?
  (John Healey) I think I have made that clear.


  339. In the Radio 4 interview it was like buyer beware. I remember you saying on File on 4, the clear message you gave was it is up to the consumer to decide whether it was a dodgy car salesman or a reputable car salesman. You are saying you have changed your mind and now you want quality assurance built into the scheme?
  (John Healey) I think, Chairman, with respect, you may be confusing two things. The first is whether or not the learning provider generally should be accredited. I think I made it quite clear that is one issue that we are considering very closely as we look at the redesign. The second is the principle which surely must remain because it becomes impractical to think of anything else that in the end where you are looking to liberate the interest and demand for learning from individuals, it has to be the individuals who ultimately decide what learning is appropriate for them and where they want to get that from. Now the difference in the two propositions would be that you would have a register of learning providers who simply had a different set of requirements for the provider to meet before being registered. I do not anticipate, and it has not proved the case in Scotland, that it will restrict the individual's range of choice about the sort of learning that might be available for them and eligible for ILA support or constrain the decisions that ultimately are those for the individual because the deal or transaction or contract has got to remain between the individual and the learning provider themselves.

1   Note by witness: The figure for the cap suggested is £1,750. Back

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 11 February 2002