Teaching Profession
We now have a statement by Mr Jack McConnell on the teaching profession for the 21st century. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions during it.
I have not spent many Valentine's days in the past 20 years with either Mike Russell or Brian Monteith, but I am grateful for the opportunity to report to Parliament on the agreement that the Executive has reached on a pay and conditions package for teachers that will bring stability to Scottish education for the first time in a generation.
On 10 January, I reported to Parliament on the progress that we were making in finalising the agreement. On 12 January the implementation group, which we established to take forward the discussion on the recommendations from the McCrone report, endorsed the final agreement. That endorsement was from the employers, the teacher organisations and the Scottish Executive. Those bodies were equal partners, bringing together their expertise and experience to realise a shared commitment to addressing the problems of the past and building a new approach.
I am pleased to inform the Parliament that the agreement has been endorsed by more than 80 per cent of Scotland's teachers. That is an historic achievement—an agreement that has been put together through discussion, agreed by consensus and endorsed through the democratic process.
In the agreement we have recognised and rewarded each teacher for the professional skills that they bring to the classroom and to the school. We have won a contractual commitment to an additional 35 hours each year from every teacher to develop those skills and the knowledge required to keep pace with the demands made of them throughout their teaching career.
We have created a new opportunity, based on the achievement of additional qualifications, for classroom teachers to make progress in their careers by staying in the classroom and applying their skills to the educational achievement of Scotland's children.
We have introduced a guaranteed training place for every teacher leaving college—offering the practical experience of the classroom combined with the continued development of professional skills—with teacher-led mentoring support and a salary that recognises the value that we place on the commitment made to a teaching career.
We have put in place the resources to bring additional professional support staff into our schools to relieve teachers of the burden of bureaucracy and give them back the time to teach.
We have created a new system of local negotiation and discussion, which recognises the legitimate role of local authorities as the managers of education and the responsibility of leadership that we expect in our senior teachers.
Those achievements have built on the recommendations of the McCrone report. I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to Professor McCrone, and his colleagues on the committee, for such a far-sighted report. We have been able to build on its recommendations and take them forward to a new stage.
In return for the significant changes in teachers' conditions, we have agreed new salary levels which, over three years, will provide an average increase of 21.5 per cent for every teacher. The new salary levels build in the increase that McCrone said was necessary to achieve comparability with other professionals. They also include the increase for each of the three years, which would otherwise have been the subject of debate—and possibly dispute—in the annual negotiations. In doing that we have ended the feast or famine approach to teachers' pay that has marred recent years, and we have secured a period of genuine stability in our classrooms. That stability will allow teachers to concentrate on the job that they do well. We need that stability to allow our young people to learn and grow.
We said at the outset that we needed to achieve an agreement that would mark significant change in the culture of education and the daily atmosphere in our classrooms. We needed change in a culture and an atmosphere which, for a generation, has been characterised by suspicion, mistrust and entrenchment. The Executive promised that it would make every effort, put in all the time and commit all the energy necessary to achieve that change. With the agreement, we have delivered on that promise.
Ministers promised that if we could secure the necessary level of change, we would commit the necessary resources. We said that we would fund the additional costs that arose from implementing the final agreement. The Executive made a commitment that local authorities would not be asked to do any more than they already do in supporting school education. We have delivered on that promise.
Ministers made a commitment to reach an agreement that would put the teacher at the centre of education and the pupil at the heart of teaching. We have delivered on that commitment.
We made a commitment to real learning in our schools which every parent, every teacher and every pupil knows is won through the hard work of teacher and student. That critical relationship opens the doors of learning to all our children and gives them entry to a world of achievement, growth and ambition.
Opening the doors of learning is the single most important means by which we can end injustice and exclusion. Securing the agreement represents a major step forward in meeting the commitment to social justice that lies at the heart of the Executive's commitment to the prosperity of Scotland.
We have completed that part of our task. The agreement that we have secured offers us a unique opportunity to redress the damage of the past, to recognise and reward teachers for their professional skills, and to build relationships now and for the future that restore stability and excellence to our schools. However, the opportunity presented to us must be seized by all those involved: the local authority employers, the teacher organisations and the Parliament.
My commitment goes beyond securing the agreement. I will now host a series of bilateral meetings with those involved to agree with them the practical steps that we must take to bring the value of the agreement into every classroom in the country.
Ministers have committed significant time and resources to supporting the creation of a quality-based system of professional development for teachers. With the deputy minister, Nicol Stephen, I will drive that work forward through the national strategy committee that brings together the experience and expertise of teachers, private and public sector employers, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, management academics and practitioners from other non-teaching professions.
The Executive has already agreed to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teacher organisations to conduct an audit of bureaucracy, which will be based in the school and seen through the eyes of the teacher. Today I am pleased to announce that my department will take another significant step to reduce the bureaucratic and administrative burdens that teachers face. We will set up a gatekeeper unit to co-ordinate all our administrative and information requests to local authorities and schools and eliminate unnecessary demands and duplication. That practical step will make good my commitment that the system should support learning in our schools, instead of having a relationship where our schools are expected to support the system. That is not the end of the process; it is only a beginning. Through the agreement we have the opportunity to secure modernisation for school education. We must seize that opportunity.
The agreement includes a clear timetable for implementation and identifies a list of key tasks. I will set out some of the early action that we are taking to ensure that the timetable is delivered. I will now move to set up formally the new tripartite negotiating machinery for teachers. By the end of February, I will announce a date for the inaugural meeting and for the formal winding-up of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee. The new local negotiating machinery will be in place by April 2002.
The new negotiating body will be charged with a number of critical tasks, including ensuring that arrangements are in place to secure the start of the new, simplified career structure for teachers by August 2002. The new probation arrangements will come into play at the same time.
At the heart of the agreement is our recognition of the critical role of the teaching profession, which is based on high standards of skill and from which we rightly expect high standards of achievement. We have committed the necessary resources to value and reward the profession. We will also secure a national standard of competency that recognises quality in the profession, addresses the problems of those who are not able to meet the profession's standards, and offers the guarantee that parents—and pupils—deserve on the quality of education that they expect from our schools. We will have completed that task by the end of March and, with our partners in the new national negotiating body, we will work on its implementation from April.
We have agreed to undertake a review of initial teacher education, which I intend to implement in two stages. The first stage will be an analysis of the short-term action that can be taken. The second stage will be a more fundamental review to ensure that initial teacher education meets the needs of teachers now and in future. Work on the first stage is already under way and I expect to receive an action plan by the end of the summer.
We are committed to recruiting significant numbers of new teachers in the coming years. I have instructed new work on publicity for teacher recruitment that takes account of students' and returners' perceptions of the profession. Based on that work, the Executive will launch a new recruitment campaign in April.
I have established a task force on handling discipline, which will report in June, and a review group to consider ways of improving devolved school management which will report in May. Those specific proposals for progressing some of the agenda for action that arises from the agreement are only examples. There is a huge agenda ahead of us—nothing less than the reinvigoration of Scottish school education.
The agreement marks a turning point: a turning away from division and conflict towards constructive partnerships, a turning away from insecurity and resistance towards a positive approach to change and a turning away from short-term initiatives to a strategic approach that builds the future.
In conclusion, I congratulate Scotland's teachers and local councils on their support for the agreement. It is the best opportunity that we have had in a generation to secure a world-class future for Scotland's schools. That prize was worth fighting for and will enhance opportunity for generations to come. Together, I am sure that we can achieve that future.
I welcome the minister's statement. The SNP agrees with substantial parts of it, and welcomes the fact that over 80 per cent of the teachers have endorsed the agreement. That is immensely encouraging.
Taking the Valentine's day theme further, this should have been a day on which we could have recited the rhyme, "Roses are red, violets are blue; Jack loves the teachers and they love him too." Unfortunately, it is not. I ask Mr McConnell to say whether he will distance himself from the front page of The Scotsman today, which says:
"McConnell: bad teachers have to go".
By substituting the name with Wilson, Liddell or Galbraith, that headline would have read the same over the past two years. In his statement, the minister said that he is seeking a change
"in a culture and an atmosphere which, for a generation, has been characterised by suspicion, mistrust and entrenchment."
I am sure that he wants that change, and I wonder how the approach reported by The Scotsman contributes to it.
The SNP welcomes the reduction of bureaucracy, but does the minister believe that increasing bureaucracy will achieve that? There are three reviews, a couple of studies and a gatekeeper unit in his statement. Would it not be better to reduce bureaucracy by reducing the burden on schools and young people of assessment, targeting and the publication of league tables? Those are matters that we will have the chance to debate tomorrow. For most classroom teachers, the reduction of that burden would make a huge contribution to the reduction of bureaucracy.
There are two questions there.
It would be wrong to try to create a new culture in Scottish education by proceeding with actions that did not involve people with expertise coming together to agree the way in which we should implement the agreement. The reviews and studies that I mentioned were agreed by all the parties in the implementation group and they are the right way forward. It is correct for us to consider initial teacher education and the way forward on professional development. We should proceed in partnership in all areas—the Scottish Qualifications Authority, for example—not just with teachers, but with parents, pupils, academics and others who have experience in the field of academic teaching qualifications. That would be a good way forward, and it is already working in practice.
I look forward to debating those mystery league tables and issues of assessment and targeting with Mr Russell tomorrow morning. I hope that his comments today will not lead to an overly negative debate tomorrow, as there is much that we can debate positively. I stress that we are absolutely committed to reducing the burden of bureaucracy in Scotland's classrooms. It will happen. The bureaucracy audit will make it happen in the schools and the gatekeeper unit will make it happen in the education department.
It is clear from the interview in the organ that carries the headline to which Mr Russell refers that I am not interested in vendettas against individual teachers or groups of teachers. The vast majority of Scotland's teachers are doing an excellent job. Many of those who are finding it hard to cope could cope much better with help and support and the sort of professional development that the agreement puts in place.
There may be some teachers who cannot cope in the longer term. They should be helped out of the classroom. There should be no vendettas, but there should be clear professional standards. Such standards exist in every other profession and they will now exist in teaching. That is good for Scotland's pupils.
I thank the minister for making the text of his statement available in advance. Before I knock back his amorous advances, let me congratulate Labour's fourth education minister in three years on achieving what his predecessors failed to do—establishing a satisfactory deal on pay and conditions for teachers.
I welcome the improvements in teachers' pay. As the minister knows, the Conservative party believed that the negotiating machinery was failing Scotland's teachers and, consequently, Scotland's pupils. We wished that to be changed. I welcome the action to reduce bureaucracy and I welcome the task force on discipline.
I could welcome many other aspects of the statement but, before I succumb to the minister's overtures, I must ask him some questions that concern us all. First, will any of the funding for the pay deal come from the excellence fund? That fund was set up to help with literacy and numeracy in some of the most disadvantaged schools. If it is to be robbed, does that not mean that there will be less early intervention and less help for those who need it? Where is the social justice in that?
Secondly, the minister talked about chartered teacher status. It appears from the settlement that there will be no assessment for that status—teachers will simply have to attend professional development courses. Can the minister offer some reassurances on assessment? He talked about a national standard of competence, but is that not what registration with the General Teaching Council should be about? Would not the proposed chartered teacher status be a chance to provide for real assessment and thus enhance professionalism? If good teachers receive the same pay as bad teachers, where is the social justice for our pupils and our competent teachers?
On the new negotiating machinery, can the minister tell me how his tripartite system will work if Glasgow City Council, South Lanarkshire Council and other local authorities are no longer members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? Taxpayers in those areas will be unrepresented. Where is the social justice in that?
The final point is a matter for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but the other points are important.
No money will be taken from the excellence fund to pay for increases in teachers' pay. We have produced a pay and conditions agreement. The conditions include improvement in professional development, in teacher education and in the number of support staff in schools. The excellence fund will continue to be used for those purposes. There will be no transfer of resources away from those key priorities into teachers' pay. The Executive has made additional resources available for teachers' pay and we stand by that commitment.
I welcome Mr Monteith's conversion to the need to target resources at those who require a better start in life. Clearly, the consensus that we are building in Scottish education is wide-reaching. I say to him, however, that I am not interested in a system that pays good teachers well and bad teachers badly. That is not the purpose of what we seek to achieve. Neither do we want the annual development work to be done only with those who have chartered teacher status. The systems that will operate through the agreement will operate for all Scotland's teachers—primary, secondary and special needs—all of whom are equal in value and to all of whom the expectations in the agreement apply equally. Every teacher should be paid on the same scale. If teachers cannot cope, the solution is not to cut their wages, but to help them through retraining or to find them another place in the world.
I, too, welcome the statement and congratulate Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen on bringing it to the chamber today. I thank them for personal reasons because, when the review was announced, I had a rush of blood to the head and said that, if an agreement could not be reached with the teachers, I was getting out of the Scottish Parliament fast. I am delighted that I can stay.
I welcome the tone of the statement and, like Brian Monteith, I welcome many of the details. Above all, I welcome the teachers' vote. Without carrying the teachers with us, the package could not work. That is what was wrong with the millennium review. It was a dead duck, because people did not know where it was coming from.
I want to make two points. First, the settlement is not an instant, quick-fix solution. Even within the three years for implementation, much consultation and work require to be done at national, local authority and school levels. Suspicion, mistrust and resentment do not disappear overnight. Issues include negotiations about the way in which the 35-hour week is organised, sensitivities about job sizing and a change of culture to move to collaborative working. Above all, the importance of making the training—
This is a speech. Where is the question?
Right. I want to ensure that the quality of training and the professional development courses are of the correct standard.
Secondly, the agreement must not to be a one-off solution. I remember the Main and Houghton reports, after which good awards were secured, but things were left to wither on the vine.
Come on!
McCrone must signal an on-going—
Order. Just a minute please, Mr Jenkins. Mr Russell is anxious to hear a question; I share his enthusiasm.
I am asking whether the minister agrees that McCrone should signal an on-going process of engagement with teachers—not just for this year and next year—and a process of partnership, in which conditions of service continue to be reviewed and salaries are maintained at an appropriate level.
Answer that.
I may need a while. I welcome many of Mr Jenkins's comments. I endorse what he says about the fact that much work remains to be done. This is not over—it is simply the beginning of a new era in Scottish education. We want to ensure that the professional development that is in place for every teacher in Scotland, and the training that is in place for those who wish to join the profession and rebuild their skills inside the profession or who want to return into the profession, are of a sufficiently high quality.
We also want to ensure—through the tripartite negotiating machinery and through the involvement of those who hold the purse-strings and those who negotiated in the past—that we end the feast-and-famine approach to teachers' pay and conditions. I think that we can achieve that, but we will need good will and hard work to do so.
I remind members that the party spokesmen are allowed to comment on the statement. The same applies to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee convener, whom I now call.
I welcome the minister's statement and thank him for keeping me—on behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—informed of developments.
I particularly welcome the review of initial teacher training. That issue has been raised frequently with the committee during all its visits; the part of the McCrone settlement that deals with it is very welcome. I ask the minister to keep the committee informed of developments in that area in particular and to let us have sight of the action plan when it becomes available.
I welcome the additional classroom support. That has started to pay dividends for some of the most vulnerable pupils. The support provided to staff is most important. Any move to enhance it is therefore welcome.
I welcome the minister's comments on teachers who are not performing as well as they could be and what he said about the support that will be given to them, either for staying in the classroom or, if necessary, in leaving the classroom. We must expect and demand the best for our children, which involves the teaching staff who work with them. We expect the best of all other professions; teachers should be no different. That is a small but important part of the package.
Can the minister clarify the position on the financial package? Will he assure us that there will be no additional financial burden on local authorities, particularly in years 3 and 4 of the settlement? There is concern among some authorities that that might be the case.
Since the McCrone report was published, we have made it clear in writing that the local authorities will not be expected to make any contribution from their budgets beyond what they would normally have been expected to make. We have stood by that commitment and believe that it can work in practice.
We will certainly keep the Education, Culture and Sport Committee informed of developments. The development of support staff in secondary schools is important, although we have to treat it with sensitivity and get it right. There is no doubt that support staff are making a real difference in Scotland's primary schools. They can also make a difference in secondary schools, although, given the nature of the timetable, the arrangements there are slightly more complicated. We are committed to the development of support staff in secondary schools in due course. I hope that we will have the committee's support for that.
On the subject of today's headline in The Scotsman about sacking teachers, will the minister promise not to follow the bad example of David Blunkett and Nellie Liddell, who seem to go out of their way to provoke teachers by threatening them with the sack?
In view of the importance of school sport, which has never really recovered from the teachers' dispute that the Tories provoked in the 1980s, will the minister encourage local education authorities and schools to implement the McCrone proposals in such a way that teachers are given incentives to spend time on school sports and other important activities that contribute to the wider life of the school?
I am certainly keen that school sport—both sport on the curriculum and the extra-curricular activities that are so important in Scotland's best schools in a wide range of communities—should be extended. I hope that the agreement, along with our other policies, will not only give us a framework for improving extra-curricular activities, but create the environment in which teachers participate enthusiastically, with or without incentives.
I again make two things clear. I am not interested in a campaign to sack teachers across Scotland. That would be nonsense and we should avoid such a culture. I am also not interested in letting down any pupils across Scotland. We need to get the balance right between setting professional standards—and helping teachers to reach those standards—and ensuring that there is appropriate intervention to secure the education of any pupils who are affected by the quality of teaching. I will seek to achieve the right balance in my actions and in future headlines.
I whole-heartedly welcome the minister's statement and the result of the ballot of my trade union colleagues—it is good news for Scotland's teachers, pupils and education generally.
Will the minister confirm that the new chartered teacher grade will keep more experienced teachers in the classroom, which is always a plus, and that, because the grade is attained by qualification, it will end the fear of patronage by authority or head teacher?
The chartered teacher grade will have authority because it is attained by qualification. That partly addresses the point that Mr Monteith made. It is important that there is consistency in the new grade across Scotland and that people should achieve something in reaching it. It is also important that the agreement has been reached through consensus, on the basis of the large majority in the ballot.
I hope that the creation of the chartered teacher grade will allow teachers who are excellent in the classroom and want to stay there to help pupils and other teachers—who may be younger or may be struggling to cope—to do so. Such teachers can achieve the chartered teacher status and perhaps be more successful than they would be under the regime of promoted posts and senior teachers, which has not worked well over the past 15 years.
The significant number of teachers that will be recruited in the next few years and the review of initial teacher education have been mentioned. I will ask about two groups of teachers. First, given that mainstreaming is costly, will the minister confirm that there is capacity in the funding package not only for the recruitment of additional teachers of children with special educational needs, but for the training needs of such teachers? Secondly, will the specific training and professional development that are required in Roman Catholic schools be accommodated meaningfully in the proposals?
I am sure that the additional teachers whom we will require as a result of the agreement can be accommodated by the funding package accompanying the agreement. The exact details of how that package will deliver and what teachers will be required in what areas will be a process of national and local negotiation through the new negotiating committees. The partnership that has developed in recent months will deliver the rational approach for which I think Irene McGugan is calling. I am sure that that partnership will succeed when the local negotiating committees and the national framework are put in place.
I warmly welcome the overwhelming endorsement given by the teachers to the pay deal—I suspect that my welcome is warmer than that of Mike Russell. I congratulate all the parties involved in negotiating the deal: the Executive, the trade unions and the local authorities.
The minister said that a new recruitment campaign will be launched in April. Is he confident that that campaign and the associated pay deal will address some of the staff shortages that have existed in key disciplines?
I do not want to be over-confident or to underestimate the challenges that we face, particularly in certain subject areas. We must be honest about those challenges. However, the package will be valuable in attracting new students and others into the profession over the months ahead, not just because of the resources but because of the value that it puts on the profession. The recruitment campaign that is to be launched in April will be carefully designed to attract the sort of people who, 20 years ago, would have considered teaching as a profession but who, in the past decade, were put off by the culture that developed during the past 20 years.
Following on from that response, will the minister address concerns about the possible lack of flexibility in the package? In particular, there may be insufficient flexibility to attract teachers into those subject areas, such as mathematics, where shortages have been identified or into certain geographic areas. For example, it is becoming difficult to attract teachers to Stranraer in my South of Scotland region. Is the minister certain that the package is flexible enough, in comparison with the system of golden hellos that is to be introduced in England?
We will see the benefits of devolution both in Westminster and in Scotland as education policies develop north and south of the border and as we tailor them to meet the needs of the systems in England and Scotland. That is a good thing.
Some aspects of our agreement on teachers' pay and conditions will appear to be more generous than the English agreement. However, some aspects of the English agreement are more generous than the Scottish agreement, such as those that rightly target the parts of the profession that require support in recruitment and retention of staff. That is a good thing, but we must continue to develop Scottish solutions for the Scottish system.
The package includes some flexibility, but it is a package of national conditions of service, which is the right way ahead for Scotland, given the size of the country and the system that is in place. I hope that the package will work in practice.
Like Bill Butler, I welcome the 80 per cent approval for the package that was given by the Educational Institute of Scotland.
Does the minister agree that the new pay deal for teachers may prove to be a considerable attraction for people who are employed as lecturers in our colleges and universities?
It might, but those people would have to register with the General Teaching Council for Scotland before they could enjoy the benefits of the new package.
As an ex-teacher—I was once the only teacher in my school on strike for higher wages—I warmly welcome the 21 per cent increase that the minister announced. For too long, teachers have been undervalued in Scottish society.
I hear and welcome the minister's comment that there will be no vendettas against teachers. Will he advise the chamber exactly what mechanisms will be put in place to prevent the use of national standards of competence to witch-hunt out of their jobs teachers whose faces do not fit or whose ideas may lead them to clash with those in authority directly above them?
As I said in my statement, the exact mechanisms will be discussed over the weeks leading to 31 March. During that period, we will secure and deliver a new system through the new negotiating machinery. That is the right and proper way of developing that system.
I would certainly insist that the new system for teachers should include the same sort of appeals mechanism that exists for other public sector employees. However, the details of that system should be thrashed out in the negotiations and discussions rather than in the chamber.
I am pleased to hear that John McAllion did not start his one-man protests in the new century. I hope that his past protest was more successful than some of his more recent efforts.
The minister's commitment to co-operating with teachers is welcome and contrasts with the attitude of some previous regimes, which have seen the teachers as a sort of malign force somehow to be kept in line.
Will the minister develop his co-operation with the teachers by discussing with the teacher unions and the councils the possibility of enabling teachers in promoted positions to change to unpromoted positions? Teachers could perhaps work part time but continue in the classroom without loss of pension rights, for example. As they reach the end of their careers, many teachers would like to continue teaching for a while, but they do not like the stress. They could, however, make a very good contribution in the classroom if things were adjusted so that they were able to make such a contribution.
John McAllion on one side of me and Donald Gorrie on the other is a Scottish Parliament double whammy.
I am pleased to confirm that the agreement includes a winding-down scheme, which will allow teachers who are nearing the end of their careers to continue to contribute in their schools. Perhaps those teachers could help younger teachers and others with classroom management as well as ensure that pupils have the benefits of their expertise and knowledge. Such a scheme is right and proper.
I have never been comfortable with a system in which teachers either had to stay on—sometimes struggle on—in the classroom in their later years or take early retirement, which is costly to the public purse. The agreement is a good way forward on that issue and I am pleased to see the agreement in place.
As the minister, Dennis Canavan and I share the distinction of having worked as teachers for the same local authority, perhaps I should declare an interest.
I welcome the general thrust of the minister's statement and believe that the security of teachers and the recognition of their professionalism are paramount. May I therefore ask the minister to ensure that, in recognising the importance of teachers' professionalism, we will have no repeat of last year's Scottish Qualifications Authority fiasco, which certainly undermined the confidence of the teaching profession? If we want to ensure that we have professional team working, teachers must be given reassurances now, as part of this package.
That reassurance is important for teachers. I think that Mrs Ewing is aware of the hard work that is being done in many areas. I am grateful for the fact that, as we try to ensure the successful completion of this year's diet of exams and to secure again the reputation of Scotland's exam system, that work is almost always cross-party. That is important for teachers; it is also important for pupils and parents. I stress that the agreement, which has been endorsed by Scotland's teachers and local authorities, is good for teachers and professionals in the classroom, but even better for the pupils and parents of Scotland. It is a chance for a fresh start; it is a real turning point. I hope that the Parliament can today see a way forward that will be good for the generations to come.
I was interested in what the minister said about attracting mature entrants to the teaching profession. That is difficult in the Highlands and Islands, where we do not have any teacher training colleges and mature entrants tend to have family commitments that make it difficult for them to leave home for teacher training. Will the minister examine how teacher training can be delivered by distance learning, perhaps through the University of the Highlands and Islands?
That is exactly the sort of issue that our review can look into. Following Mrs Macmillan's question, I will be happy to ensure that it does so.