Education
We come now to the first item of business, which is the statement by the Minister for Education and Young People, Cathy Jamieson, on the national debate on education. I ask those who want to ask questions after the statement to indicate that on the screen.
In March, when I launched the national debate on education, I set out the following aims: to have a once-in-a-decade opportunity for everyone to think about what sort of education we want for young people in Scotland; to consider how education will offer the right opportunities for our children and young people to meet their aspirations, achieve their potential and build the future that is right for them; to examine the place of education in building Scotland's future; and to share views with each other, the Parliament and the Executive.
I have been delighted at the level of involvement in the debate from individuals and organisations across the country. I have been particularly pleased that young people have wanted to be involved and make their views known. Today, I want to share with members some of what was said during the debate and the pointers that we have been given.
I am pleased that young people and parents who were involved in the debate are in the gallery today and I welcome them.
The effort and enthusiasm of the people who participated in the debate was overwhelming. More than 800 events took place across Scotland and we estimate that more than 20,000 people took part in the debate. For any consultation, that is a tremendous response. It means that we can draw conclusions and identify the areas where consensus is clear, the areas that are working well and those areas in which we must modernise our approach. A wide range of organisations and people—employers, parents' groups, local authorities, groups from many faiths, children's organisations, young people with experience of the care system and homelessness, prisoners and equality groups—took part in many different ways, from big national conferences to groups in local halls and in people's homes.
Out of around 1,500 responses received, some 400 cover pupils' views. I believe that the views of pupils are central to the future of Scotland's education. Education should not be something that we do to our young people. Today's pupils are the future citizens of Scotland. They are our future parents, teachers, employers, health workers, lawyers and farmers. They have a real stake in the future.
Another important feature of the debate is the partnership with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. All the responses that were received in the debate are being shared with the committee, and I welcome its enthusiastic support for the debate.
However, not everyone was enthusiastic. Some people—including a few teachers—were sceptical about the process. One teacher said in his response:
"I firmly believe that no one pays any heed to what I write in these consultation documents so when you read this get in touch".
We did so. I have a message for that teacher, and for everyone else who took part: we have listened; your views count; and by taking part you have made a difference. We will show that our response is based on your views.
We commissioned an independent team at the University of Edinburgh, led by Professor Pamela Munn, to analyse the responses on our behalf. We are treating the debate seriously. With the volume of responses received, producing the full analysis and the fully considered response will take some time. However, to give an early indication of the views received we are publishing an initial report today. It is not the final word, but gives an overview of what has been said and what matters to people. Some of the messages are hard ones for me as a minister, but we are publishing the University of Edinburgh's report, including all the concerns, because those who took part in the debate deserve to hear an honest and full report of what was said.
What do the responses tell us so far? Education matters to Scotland. There is clear evidence of that from the numbers who took part in the debate. There is a pride in Scottish education. People do not want to lose comprehensive schools and a broadly based curriculum. This is not a faceless system. To pupils and parents, teachers are essential, and they are doing a good job.
I was pleased, but not surprised to see such positive messages. Every day, I see creative and innovative work in our schools. There is a fundamental strength to the education system in Scotland that we should bear in mind as we look to the future. We should not be afraid to change, where change is needed to improve the quality and relevance of the education service that our children receive. We must make it our business to improve where we must and ensure that we make continuous improvements within a stable framework.
We also heard that people were worried about the pace of change—parents and pupils as well as teachers. They see a school system that is suffering from too many initiatives. They desperately want some stability, but they recognise the need to change some things.
Many people were concerned about the level of resources for schools and the standards of buildings and equipment and want there to be more and better-skilled teachers.
There were concerns about class sizes. People want pupils to get the attention and support that they need from teachers. There were also concerns about discipline. People want discipline problems to be taken seriously and dealt with effectively.
People were proud of the broad and balanced Scottish curriculum but saw problems with a curriculum that appears to be becoming overloaded. There was, therefore, strong support for the development of a core curriculum that would allow flexibility for schools to meet individual needs and talents—for example, by providing more time for art, drama, music and sport—and for pupils to have the chance to take short courses. There was also support for learning opportunities that would challenge our more able pupils.
There were concerns about the amount of assessment in schools and worries that there is now too much grading and sorting of children during their school careers. Those concerns point to real tensions. How do we balance the strength of Scottish education—which, for years, has offered us the opportunity to become rounded, informed citizens—with the need to meet the potential of each child and equip her or him with the skills and experience that are needed to find a job and achieve economic independence?
People wanted a stable framework—but with flexibility for more school-level control of resources and decisions. Where is the right balance to be struck? How do we provide equality of opportunity and provision throughout the country, but leave room for local decisions to be made when that is the best way to meet needs?
Parents and pupils rightly want to be well informed about education and involved in school decisions. I know that that is happening already in lots of ways—through school boards, parent-teacher associations and pupil councils, for instance—but it could be more effective. We need to do more. We should take a hard look at how we make that happen. How could we make better use of information technology for parents as well as pupils? How can we make sure that there is on-going contact rather than just occasional involvement? How can we get parents into schools—as well as getting information out—to ensure an active, dynamic relationship that places schools at the heart of the community?
To address those tensions and search out the right balance is not an impossible task, but it demands reflection and thought and requires us to work together. Over the next few months we will develop our full response to the views and questions, but some key aspects are already clear, particularly the need for stability and flexibility. We need to build a clear national framework that lets schools and authorities concentrate on meeting individual pupils' needs and enables local delivery, rather than burden schools with unnecessary bureaucracy.
The national debate on Scotland's education has taken place at a time of great awareness of the need to ensure that pupils leave school and higher and further education with the range of skills that will enable them to compete for jobs and to contribute to building a competitive Scotland. The Scottish Executive is committed to ensuring that our education system is of high quality and a global leader and that it plays a full role in helping to secure that competitive Scotland. Our challenge is to ensure that we build on existing strengths while modernising the education system to face the new challenges. By modernisation, we mean taking account of new thinking, new technology, new knowledge and new skills.
We need the right framework in place to do that and we have made a solid start. One of the first acts of this Parliament was to recognise the right of every child in Scotland to an education that fulfils his or her potential. Most important, the McCrone agreement that modernised teachers' conditions and introduced professional pay levels means that we can now recruit, train and reward the right teachers.
Those first steps and the conclusions from the education debate reveal the need for a closer and more productive relationship between those who manage, deliver and receive education and the Executive. I have already begun to build that relationship. I have today announced the repeal of the outdated Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 and we are investing more than £1 billion in school buildings, using the public-private partnership mechanism.
We are committed to doing even more to ensure that we have the right environment for learning. Through the Scottish budget for the next three years, we have provided for record levels of resources for schools. Those resources will enable us to build a modern education environment.
If our education is to be fit for purpose in future, teachers need the highest quality of training. I am determined to deliver just that. I announced today the next stage of our review of initial teacher education. The first-stage report was received last year and is now being implemented. I have commissioned Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education to carry out a scoping review of initial teacher education and to report to me in early 2003. That will give us up-to-date evidence on current practice to inform the second-stage review.
Those developments have cleared the ground. They pave the way and put key elements of the new education framework in place. It is the right framework to allow schools to deliver, but we must go further and examine how we might build on the guiding principles of our truly comprehensive system to build a system that meets the needs of all the children in our schools. That must not mean limiting the ambitions of any group.
A smart, successful Scotland will be secured only if we get beyond narrow, subject-based knowledge. We want to encourage and support young people to become creative, enterprising citizens. In order to secure that we need high-quality vocational education as one of the options available, not just for those staying on in the fifth year of secondary school because of when their 16th birthday falls, but right through school.
Schools need to work more closely with further and higher education, developing lasting partnerships. More involvement is needed with the real world of work in order to develop young people's ability to put knowledge into practice, to try out their skills and for them to be prepared for the world after school.
We need to secure better transitions from primary school to secondary school, and from the pre-five stage to primary, while recognising the needs of individual children and their development. We need to ensure that schools of the future have access to staff with the right skills and knowledge—teachers, specialists and support staff—who are best placed to provide pupils with the knowledge and skills that they need. We must not limit ourselves to arithmetical solutions to class sizes, but should bring more adults into the classroom to support teachers. We must find new ways to work in smaller groups, using other professional skills to support young people.
The strongest message from the debate is that people do not want more and more initiatives. I have heard that time and again when I have visited schools. I agree with that, but I intend to challenge everyone to aim for excellence and to deliver it. I will drive forward an agenda of continuous improvement in education. Just as we must avoid change for its own sake, stability must not mean stagnation. I want teachers, parents and other education professionals to work with us to create the stable framework that people want and to find ways of increasing flexibility in organising learning and teaching at a local level, while keeping pupils at the centre of schools and schools at the heart of their communities. I want us to have a shared vision for the future that ensures that every school is a centre of excellence. That means that teachers, parents, pupils and policy makers—all of us who care about education—must keep working together to make the changes that will deliver for young people. Those changes will ensure that Scotland is a world leader in education, and they will build on our strengths, modernise and move us forward together.
This is about building on strengths and tackling weaknesses; it is about building an education system that is fit for purpose; and it is about building an education system that is fit for the future. Most important, it is about building an education service that is worthy of our young people.
I have received a large number of requests to ask questions. It will not be possible to fit everybody in, but the shorter everybody's questions and answers, the more questions we will get in.
I thank the Minister for Education and Young People for her statement, and ask that she accept Michael Russell's apologies. He is on a previously arranged parliamentary delegation to Quebec. I am not sure whether his remit includes repairing relationships, but that is a different matter.
Let me turn to the heart of the issue. Does the minister agree that there is a difference between consultation with a blank piece of paper and the role of Government in leading the country and implementing action? I acknowledge that this is a long-term project, but point out that babies who were born within weeks of Labour coming to power in 1997 are now in primary 1. Can we ensure that the children of today do not miss out on vital Government action?
I note the press release that was issued before the minister made her statement, about the fact that the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 is being phased out. How can that happen when so many references and terms are subject to continuing negotiation?
It is crystal clear from the University of Edinburgh's report that there is a strong desire for smaller class sizes, something which the minister apparently wearies of hearing about from the Scottish National Party, although that desire carries a weight of popular support. What exactly will the Government do for today's pupils that will involve investment in additional teachers, rather than just moves towards composite classes or having additional classroom assistants? In recent years the Government's favourite method of reducing class sizes to 30 in primaries 1 to 3 has been to have composite classes. That method is not based on any sound, substantial research—something that the Government has itself acknowledged. Is the Government going to bring more teachers into the classroom, or will it be a case of trying to do arithmetic with an adult to pupil ratio instead of a teacher to pupil ratio, bearing in mind the fact that there were 95 fewer primary school teachers last year than in 2000, according to the most recent schools census?
Let me turn to the consultation responses concerning an over-emphasis on external assessment, an issue that was also raised by the SNP. What action does the minister anticipate to reverse the growing trend, so that children can acquire basic skills without the straitjacket of external assessment? The report refers to choice in the curriculum. How can one have choice in the curriculum if one is in a straitjacket of external assessment? What does the minister know now that she did not know before the extensive exercise started?
I did not think that I would miss Mike Russell, but he might have asked a question more quickly. I do not have the time to respond in detail to the many points that Fiona Hyslop raised. If I did respond to all her points, the Presiding Officer would not have time to fit in any more questions.
We are taking action. It is not a case of the Executive sitting back and not taking action on education. We have increased the number of adults who are working in classrooms. If the member went into classrooms as often as I do, she would know that the classroom assistants programme has been welcomed by teachers. It has removed the administrative burden from teachers and is providing opportunities for young people to have the support that they need.
The Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 was mentioned. A parliamentary question was answered this morning. The repeal of the part of the schools code that refers to early years education was signalled some time ago in guidance. Anyone who has been following the education debate would know that.
Fiona Hyslop has asked about whether it is the role of Government to consult. In a truly democratic society, it is the role of Government to lead. Although we will not shirk from leading, we will also work with communities, which are often not consulted, with young people, who are at the centre of education, and with teachers. We will work with everyone to come to a consensus and we will move forward. I make no apologies for that. The national debate has gone to places to which other consultations would not have dreamed of going.
I thank the minister for her statement and I apologise on behalf of my colleague Brian Monteith, who usually fills this seat. He is widening his waistline in Bournemouth.
I am not surprised that the minister is pleased with the support that is shown for the comprehensive system. When the full responses are published, I suspect that many will prove to be from the usual suspects, who have a vested interest in the continuance of the current system, which benefits some, but fails too many—especially the least well off. All too often, the comprehensive system condemns pupils living in deprived areas to a sub-standard education from a failing school. If we wanted to design a school system that had the express aim of perpetuating social divisions, it would be hard to see how the Scottish Executive could improve on the present arrangements.
Members should not take my word for it. Someone said last week:
"The better-off can buy a better education, or move to a better area …
In education, we need to move to the post-comprehensive era, where schools keep the comprehensive principle of equality of opportunity but where we open up the system to new and different ways of education, built round the needs of the individual child. …
Why shouldn't there be a range of schools for parents to choose from; from specialist schools to the new city Academies, to faith schools, to sixth forms and sixth form colleges offering excellent routes into university and skilled employment?"
Who said that? It was not a Tory politician—it was Tony Blair, speaking at the Labour party conference.
I have just one question for the minister. What lessons does she believe that she can learn from her colleagues south of the border?
I was going to say that I did not think that I would miss Brian Monteith either, but I might revise my views. A member behind me is saying, "No."
I am well aware of what the Prime Minister said last week. I will quote something else that was said last week:
"I believe in the comprehensive ideal—every child of equal worth; the highest expectations of everyone."
Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, said that. I do not think that we are a million miles apart. Indeed, we are not apart in that we want to secure the best possible outcomes for every child. It is their potential that matters, not their postcode.
I take exception to the notion that schools all around Scotland are failing schools, which Murdo Fraser seemed to imply. That is simply not the case. The consultation exercise has produced positive comments from parents and others—some of whom are sitting in the gallery—who are involved and who want to be involved in their schools and who want their schools to be at the heart of the local community. That is fundamental to the way in which we will proceed.
We will make the changes that are needed to ensure that every child has the opportunity to realise their ambitions and to build on their talents. That will not mean a fundamental dismantling of the present system. The vast majority of respondents to the debate were clear about that.
For the Liberal Democrats, I call Ian Jenkins.
The minister will know that I welcome the education debate. I look forward to reflecting on the submissions more fully, but in the meantime I welcome the way in which the consultation has endorsed the comprehensive system and the comprehensive nature of Scottish education. I welcome the way in which it has expressed positive confidence in the quality and effectiveness of the teaching that is offered to our youngsters.
I want to ask the minister two questions. First, will she assure the Parliament that the period of reflection that she mentioned will not stand in the way of on-going action, such as her commitment to cut the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork, which is a blight on the current arrangements in schools?
Secondly, and more broadly, what way forward does the minister see for reconciling the quite difficult dilemmas that are inherent in the submissions? For example, on the one hand there is a clear perception that the curriculum is overcrowded; on the other hand, there is a clear wish to expand provision in certain areas, such as physical education, sport, music, art, drama and citizenship. Similarly, there is a perceived need for a core element in the curriculum, but a strong wish for choice, pluralism and flexibility within the system. There is a clear wish for stability, yet there is recognition that development is needed. What mechanisms can we adopt to move forward in those regards?
Those are important points that go to the heart of what we are attempting to achieve. First, I want to give reassurance that a period of reflection is not about disappearing behind closed doors never to come out again, but about engaging in the process, looking at the information that we received from the debate and taking action on that.
In a number of areas, we are taking action already. For example, Ian Jenkins asked about bureaucracy. We have streamlined what was formerly the excellence fund to become the new national priorities action fund to give local authorities more flexibility over how they use those resources. Crucially, we have lifted some of the difficulties around the way in which local authorities are required to account for and report on the use of those resources. We have done that to give local authorities flexibility.
I recognise that there are dilemmas, but that is why it is important that we realise that this stage of the debate is part of a process. We want to continue to engage with the education professionals and with others. We also want to consider in some detail some of the quite creative ideas that the debate has thrown up, such as how we might reorganise the school day or the school week to allow for some of the additional opportunities that young people clearly want. We would want to do that while at the same time ensuring that every young person gets the core curriculum that will serve them well in later life.
I call Karen Gillon, who is the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
I welcome the minister's statement and the co-operation that has existed between the minister and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Some key themes have emerged from both inquiries into education, which have been very much welcomed. The committee received responses that were not just from the usual suspects or vested interests, and that has been positive.
My first question concerns curriculum flexibility and physical activity, about which several issues have emerged. Will the minister give us a flavour of what came through the consultation on that and how she aims to respond? My second question is about rural schools. In the gallery today are pupils from Crawford Primary. Will the minister indicate how the national debate is helping to shape the education that children in such rural schools receive?
I am happy to recognise, as Karen Gillon has done, the unique way in which the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has worked with the Executive on this exercise. That has been valuable for us all.
On curriculum flexibility, some of the issues that were raised about physical activity concerned the resources that are available to schools. Some issues were about people wanting greater access to specialists—which was not necessarily always a call for additional PE teachers—and to people who are active and excelling in sports. We need to look at how we can build in some of those issues.
On rural schools, what came through strongly was that, because of their very geography, many communities rely on small local schools and want those schools to remain. Interestingly, and crucially, education authorities are prepared to consider how those resources can be managed and utilised in a different way, such as by allowing teachers, head teachers and others to work in groups and in clusters. That is the kind of creative thinking that we want to continue. We have to consider how best we can get the flexibility that allows decisions to be made at local level. We will continue to work with the committee on developing such ideas.
Education in Scotland should address the needs of all pupils, as the minister proposes. The service should be fit for purpose and resourced to meet the challenges of the future. To what extent have the needs of disabled and special needs pupils been addressed in the review, to ensure that they are able to play a full and equal role?
That is an important issue; I was not able to develop it in my statement so I am pleased to answer that question now.
We have to take the issue of young people with special needs and disabilities very seriously. As part of the consultation process, we engaged with Children in Scotland and other organisations to ensure that some events directly involved children and young people who had disabilities or special needs. I was pleased to attend events and to hear directly from those children and young people. They gave a powerful message that they want this process to be about not only changes to buildings and all the physical issues around education, but changes in attitude. They want us all to be genuinely committed to working with them so that they can get the best out of life—not only in school but when they move into adulthood. We will continue to develop that theme alongside the work that we are doing on developing a new special educational needs strategy.
Murdo Fraser spoke about the comprehensive system. Will the minister confirm that comprehensive education received widespread support from the 20,000 people across Scotland who took part in the national debate? Will she make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Executive will reject Tony Blair's clarion call to the Labour party conference last week that we must now move to a post-comprehensive era? Is that not a bit thick, coming from a Fettes former pupil who never moved into the comprehensive era in the first place?
Dennis Canavan is addressing an education minister who was one of the first pupils to go through the fully comprehensive system in Ayrshire, and I do not think that it did me any harm.
Ahem!
Tory members may not agree, but as my colleagues behind me are pointing out, whatever education system they went through did not teach them manners.
The clear message that has come out of the debate is that people are basically content with the structure of the education system in Scotland. There was no huge clarion call, as Tory members may suggest, to do away with the current system or to replace it with a model that they may prefer. However, people were clear that, in changing times, we have to adapt and modernise the comprehensive system, while retaining its fundamental principles. I hope that I made that clear in my statement.
When the national debate was launched, people dismissed it as an empty consultation exercise. However, the large number of people who have contributed to the debate—and to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry—proved the doubters wrong. I am interested in what the minister will do now to make progress and to ensure that any changes will involve parents, teachers and—most important—young people.
How does the minister intend to reduce class sizes? As important, how will she secure an approach that values learning in small groups?
Cathy Peattie has hit the nail on the head. When we talk to young people, parents and teachers, they talk about the importance of being able to work in small groups. Some of the creative responses that we received considered how schools or classes could be reorganised to allow much more of that kind of teaching where necessary or appropriate. There are other opportunities for bringing together larger groups of young people to deal with certain issues. I was at an event a couple of weeks ago that brought together a couple of hundred young people from schools right across a local authority area to do work on citizenship education. Those are the kind of things that people are beginning to say can be done. We do not need to limit ourselves into boxes; we can get additional people and additional specialists into schools to work with young people.
I give the reassurance that we will continue to work with the people and groups that have contributed to the debate so far. We have generated a huge amount of interest. The issues that people are talking about might not be the issues that we would have thought about in the early stages, but we now have a responsibility to move forward and to continue to work with those groups as we introduce concrete proposals.
The minister referred in her statement to the more than £1 billion that is to be invested in school buildings throughout Scotland. I am sure that no one in the chamber, no pupil and no parent would deny that that was necessary.
Is the minister aware of last week's Audit Scotland report, which said that going down the intended PPP route will cost an extra 2 to 3 per cent in additional interest payments? That is £461 million, which translates into 92 extra schools. It also easily covers the £742,140 that it would cost to employ the 31 secondary school librarians that we need in this country to ensure that we have a smart successful Scotland. Why did the minister choose the private finance initiative route over those extras that would make a real difference to education in Scotland today?
We chose to take the route of making the biggest ever investment in school buildings and undertaking the biggest ever modernisation programme because the young people who are sitting in the gallery deserve better than the present quality of some of our school buildings. They cannot wait for some time in the future when the member believes that she might be able to deliver those things. I want to deliver those things now.
The young people whom I met at lunch time told me that there is a need to modernise the environment in which they are taught. They want to see and benefit from the new school buildings, and they want that now. I make no apologies for what we are doing.
This week, as part of sign language awareness week, I attended an event at Garvel School for the Deaf in my constituency. I met parents and pupils who expressed their concern about future specialist provision. Will the minister assure me and my constituents that children with special needs will get their fair share of the extra cash that is being invested in our schools?
I am happy to give that assurance. I take the issue of young people with special educational needs very seriously. The member will know that, last week, we announced additional resources for local authorities over and above the inclusion programme to ensure that local authorities can prepare their accessibility strategies.
Again, I met young people who have particular educational needs. They were clear that they welcome the changes that are being made; they want to be part of a school community and they welcome the work that we are doing.
I am happy to confirm that, in intending to repeal the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956, we have made it clear that we agree that teachers who are working with young people with special educational needs should still require a specialist qualification. That is very important.
The minister's statement included welcome comments about how the education service should work in partnership with pupils, parents and teachers, placing schools at the heart of their communities. We have seen that with the advent of community schools.
Will the minister tell us what steps the Executive will take to ensure that the new education strategy will meet the needs of Scotland's business communities and contribute to and reinforce policies to secure lifelong learning?
Again, I am happy to indicate that we take that issue very seriously. My colleague Nicol Stephen has been doing some work on it recently and will report on enterprise education in due course.
It has become clear from the debate that young people are saying that a week's work experience in fourth year is not necessarily the best way to prepare them for the world of work. They want us to look more creatively and imaginatively at linking with the business community and the opportunities that will be there for them in the future. We will continue to do that.
We are running out of time, but there are three more Labour members who want to speak. I will take their questions one after the other, in one go.
Does the minister accept that those who argue that the comprehensive principle is upheld by ensuring equality of opportunity for all are simply wrong, because the old exams that sorted people into junior and secondary schools were equally open to all? Is not the real comprehensive principle an end to the selection and separation of pupils into different schools by ability? Can the minister assure me that there will be no break-up of the comprehensive sector in Scotland, as is threatened by some backsliders in England and Wales?
Will the minister examine the support in the consultation for special provision for gifted children, including sportingly, musically and academically gifted children? Will she promote flexibility and innovation in provision, not least for that great majority of youngsters who are now going through the comprehensive system in the post-compulsory education period? The minister and I had the benefits of compulsory education in a comprehensive system that was designed for the few, rather than the many. Will she ignore—
Order. I am sorry, but we have to be quick.
I will make up for Brian Fitzpatrick's lengthy question by making mine short. I welcome the statement. How quickly will the minister be able to move to ensure that the needs of individual children are taken into account and delivered on?
I will try to deal with those questions briefly.
John McAllion mentioned the comprehensive principle. We have made clear today our understanding of what people expect from a comprehensive system. We are talking about every school being the best for young people and being a centre of excellence to which people have access.
Brian Fitzpatrick asked about gifted children. Interesting responses were received on that matter in the national debate. For example there were suggestions, which are well worth examining, for a children's university and for additional support for young people during school holidays.
Cathie Craigie asked how quickly we would move to ensure that the needs of individual children are met. I believe that we are doing that already. We will examine further what we are doing to afford greater opportunities to schools to organise in ways that allow them to meet their pupils' abilities.
I thank everybody for their co-operation.