---

World Class Skills 2020

We have genuinely had an exceedingly good debate and one of the things that gives me confidence in all of us collectively driving the skill agenda forward is the knowledge and commitment that has come across in every contribution. In the brief time available, I will respond in detail to some of the points made, starting with the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—someone I know has real knowledge and commitment to these issues. However, I take issue with a few of the things that he said and the terminology that he used. He stated that 40,000 young people leave school illiterate. That is simply not a figure that I recognise. There is a danger when we talk about functional illiteracy and innumeracy that people automatically jump to the conclusion that we mean illiteracy and innumeracy per se, and I think that the hon. Gentleman may have been doing that. It is important to give examples of what we mean by functional literacy. For example, that may involve a student who is moving to a new flat being able to contact and inform the bank of a change of address appropriately—either in person, over the telephone or in writing. Those are crucial and essential skills and it is right that we try to ensure that everyone has them. However, not having those skills is not the same as saying that someone is illiterate. We need greater clarity on those issues. There was then a significant debate started by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on migration. When we talk about eastern European migration, we need to recognise that that was an inevitable consequence in many ways of the decision to enlarge the European Union—the Opposition strongly supported that, as did the Government. Nevertheless, there are pressures that we need to manage. Part of the pull factor is that we have 500,000 jobs in the economy that we cannot fill—it is crucial that that is clear. That is not a consequence of our not having a high enough skills base; it is a consequence, in a significant part, of the low levels of unemployment in this country. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also said a great deal about adult learner numbers. Let me be make it clear that, as I have said on a number of occasions both in the House and up and down the country, we are not cutting funding for the further education sector. We have increased funding by 50 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. What we are doing is changing the priorities, and we are prioritising and spending significantly more on adult basic skills and the roll-out of the train to gain initiative. That will mean that there is relatively less money than in the past for what might be described as adult leisure and recreation. That does not mean that I do not value that provision, but it does mean that we might have to ask the individual to pay a little more. There has been recent coverage of adult learner numbers relating to what happened between the years 2004-05 and 2005-06, which was before the major change in strategy and funding took place. As time goes by, what will, to some extent, better reflect an accurate picture are the recent surveys from colleges suggesting that they are responding positively to the changes in fees. Most colleges expect growth in full-cost activity during 2006-07. They suggest that increases in full-cost provision could offset most of the reduction in publicly funded places, and if that growth in full-cost provision continues it could completely offset the reduction in publicly funded adult places. A shift is taking place. Part of what we are seeking to do is to get individuals to make a greater commitment and a greater contribution, and it is important that we see that process through to the end. The hon. Gentleman spoke about his belief—we crossed swords on this—in the need, as I understood it, to shift the funding priority towards intermediate skills. However, without additional funding—I know that his party is committed to significant cuts in public funding—if the funding priority shift takes place and expenditure is moved to intermediate skills, it will of necessity mean that there are cuts further down the qualifications framework. That is a cause for real concern.