The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-11796, in the name of David Stewart, on educational psychologist numbers at dangerously low levels in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the report by the National Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists and the Scottish Division of Educational Psychologists, which considers that the number of trained educational psychologists in Scotland is “dangerously low” and that psychological services in Scotland are reporting a significant increase in demand; understands that up to a quarter of educational psychologists may retire in the next four years and that there are too few trainees being recruited to fill this skills gap; believes that the ratio of educational psychologists was worse in 2012 than in 2001 and that, currently, around 394 educational psychologists are working in Scotland while the profession estimates the need for around 1,025; understands that the removal of the bursary paid to each trainee by the Scottish Government means that new trainees need to have access to around £25,000 to self-fund course fees, travel and living expenses, which has led to a 70% drop in applicants and a negative impact on the quality of candidates; considers that this has also created difficulties for students wishing to access courses who are resident in the Highlands and Islands and remote and rural parts of Scotland, and believes that a fall in the standards of assessment of children will undermine advances in early years intervention and, in particular, the educational advice open to children with learning difficulties and those with autistic spectrum disorder.
12:33
I thank all the members across the Parliament who took the time to sign my motion and all those who have taken the time to attend the debate. I extend my thanks to the many organisations that provided briefings ahead of the debate on this important issue.
I raised concern about the number of educational psychologists in Scotland with the former Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning Mike Russell on a number of occasions. My interest was sparked by a constituent—a young student—from Moray, whose concerns about the future of educational psychology struck a chord with me, leading to today’s debate.
The Scottish children’s services coalition has described educational psychologist training in Scotland as a “ticking time bomb” that faces the sector. The issue was first raised with me in the autumn of 2013, when a young, bright and enthusiastic constituent came to discuss the numerous issues and challenges that face people who are seeking to work as educational psychologists and the pressure on those who are currently working in the sector.
Educational psychology in Scotland faces two challenges. First, there is a shortage of trained educational psychologists practising in Scotland. The Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists and the Scottish division of educational psychology have described the number as “dangerously low”. Their report in 2013 concluded that educational psychology faced an “impending crisis”. As things stand, up to a quarter of Scotland’s current educational psychologists could retire within the next four years, and far too few postgraduate trainees are coming into the field to replenish the number who may be retiring.
That leads to the second and interconnected challenge, which concerns the training of new educational psychologists and is the point that my constituent raised directly with me. As members will know, in 2012 the Scottish Government took the decision to scrap the bursary that was paid to trainee educational psychologists. That means that each individual student is responsible for meeting the entire £18,000 university tuition fee from their own pockets. In addition, there is the burden of covering living expenses—food, travel and accommodation—over the two-year postgraduate course.
The result is even more debt for those who have accumulated debt during their undergraduate studies. Students who are accepted on to the course and are willing to take on the financial burden are, of course, eligible for a career development loan of around £3,400 across the two-year period. However, that leaves a massive shortfall of more than £14,000. That huge financial burden is crippling those who are currently on courses and has led to a 70 per cent reduction in applications from new candidates since the crucial funding was removed.
The Currie report of 2001 reviewed the provision of educational psychology services. The minister’s foreword to that report warned of the
“urgent need to recruit and train more educational psychologists”.
The number of children who have been identified as having additional support needs has grown, more than doubling from 2010 to 2014.
We need to reintroduce bursaries for students and give local authorities the minimum number of psychologists needed to operate the system; otherwise we will have a meltdown in educational psychology. I call on the Government to think again and reintroduce minimum numbers and bursaries.
12:38
I thank David Stewart for bringing this debate to the chamber.
I wanted to participate in the debate for practical reasons. This is not just about educational psychologists. Mr Stewart made some accurate points, in as much as there are a number of people who have family members with learning difficulties or autism. I have on-going constituency cases in which the education authority in Renfrewshire is letting my constituents down. For example, it is not supporting autistic young people—it is giving them almost empty timetables, because the support is not there. Local authorities should be looking at one another and at themselves to ask how they should be delivering for and supporting those families.
I also have personal reasons for wanting to speak in the debate. My son has learning difficulties. He is now 23, but my family had to go through some of the situations that many families are still going through. The issues in Renfrewshire Council have existed for a long time, and the difficulties that families face now are very similar to the difficulties that we faced. Local authorities have to ask whether they are supporting families and young people enough.
Educational psychologists, who are there to support learners, are extremely important. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 enables parents and young people to request that their education authority arrange an assessment for the child or young person. It is then up to the education authority to decide the appropriate person to make that assessment. As a parent and a parliamentary representative of the people of Paisley, I do not care—and the people of Paisley do not care—who makes the decision or who carries out the assessment; we just need to ensure that the family and the child get the opportunity to move forward.
When we talk about this issue, we must also talk about partnership working. The Scottish Government must—and does—work with local authorities to ensure that we deliver. In a lot of constituency cases, I find that families do not seem to be getting support when their children have special needs. That is an on-going issue. We must support affected families.
I am aware of what happens in other local authorities. Let me give an example. In other areas, British Sign Language teachers are able to help in primary schools to ensure that deaf children have the opportunity to engage fully with their classes. Some local authorities, such as the Ayrshire councils, have pooled their resources to ensure that they put those professionals into the areas where they are needed.
When the Education and Culture Committee considered this year’s budget, we looked at delivery of primary and secondary school education. A problem that kept appearing was that joint working and joint services among local authorities were just not happening—local authorities are not working together.
I would have thought that, in the case of educational psychology, the best way forward would be for local authorities to work with one another to find out whether there are areas where there is a higher incidence of children or young people with learning difficulties or additional support needs, so that support can be put into those areas. That is another example of how local authorities could work better and smarter with one another.
Although I welcome the debate, the issue is not quite as simple as the motion suggests. It is complex—a lot is involved. We should work with local authorities to help them, but they must take responsibility for the services that they offer.
12:42
I congratulate Dave Stewart on bringing forward this important debate and on highlighting the disparity between the supply of vital psychological support and demand for it. The motion encapsulates that when it says that there are only 394 educational psychologists, although we need more than 1,000 of them. That disparity exists in spite of the fact that educational psychology is a statutory function and, clearly, is crucial to the national priority of supporting early and effective intervention. It is also essential to the implementation of important and admirable Government strategies such as getting it right for every child, and important legislation such as the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Many children and young people will struggle with learning if they do not have support, a proper assessment or a clear plan for their education path, with detrimental consequences for their mental and emotional wellbeing. We should also remember that educational psychologists are critical to planning for young people in care and that they provide specialist advice in a variety of education contexts, from case work advice to whole school analysis and strategic development.
I have been around long enough to remember that similar issues were raised in the Parliament’s early years. Indeed, I remember that, before the Parliament was established, Brian Wilson, who was the education minister between 1997 and 1999, increased the number of educational psychologists. I also remember that, in the Parliament’s early years, Cathy Jamieson conducted a review of the issue, with a 2002 report making 30 important recommendations, many of which are still relevant.
I also note that in 2013 the national Scottish steering group for educational psychology recommended a review, with a view to developing a national framework, and I hope that the minister and the Scottish Government will consider that recommendation, which I think is just as relevant today as it was two years ago.
As David Stewart emphasised as a central point in his opening speech, one fundamental problem is the loss of the bursary that is paid to trainee educational psychologists. If we are serious about ensuring that no child slips through the system without diagnosis and support, we have to revisit the decision to remove that bursary. The motion refers to the £25,000 cost of self-funding course fees and travel and living expenses, which is thought to be directly connected to the 70 per cent drop in applications for educational psychology courses. David Stewart reminded us that that is particularly serious, given that, as we have been advised, a quarter of educational psychologists might retire in the next four years.
Emma Brown, the chair of the Scottish division of the educational psychology training committee, highlighted significant concerns about the issue as long ago as 2010, very shortly after that significant change in the bursary provision was made. She said then that the change would affect
“equality of access for candidates to courses, quality of future Educational Psychology graduates, and ... Educational Psychology Services’ ability to fulfil their duties locally and nationally”.
She also appealed to the cabinet secretary of the day
“to consult with professional bodies”
on this important matter. It seems that that did not happen; certainly no change took place, and I hope that the cabinet secretary—and, indeed, the minister who is to reply to the debate—will consult professional bodies, consider my earlier suggestion of undertaking a review and developing a national framework and, most important of all, revisit the decision to remove the bursary.
12:46
I thank David Stewart for securing this debate on the shortage of educational psychologists. It is important to point out that there are shortages of psychologists in most disciplines, although in this debate we are looking only at the shortage in one particular area.
Given the 100 per cent increase in the number of children who are recorded as having additional support needs and the fairly static number of educational psychologists, the problem is urgent. In fact, it was urgent in 2002, and it is even more urgent now. Of course, I appreciate that not every child with ASN will need to see a psychologist, but we should be doing all that we can to help those who do.
The educational psychology profession estimates that more than 1,000 educational psychologists are needed. At the moment, we have only 400, and the 25 per cent of them who are due to retire in five years will bring that number down to 300, with 700 vacancies. Some years ago, members of the health committee at the time were told that there were windows of opportunity at certain points in a child’s development and that any window that was missed at that age would be missed for ever—it would just be too late. That is the critical point.
It is not as if the issue is new or has just come to the Scottish Government’s attention. When I asked several questions on the matter last August, I met with this response from Mike Russell:
“We are working in partnership with the National Scottish Steering Group for Educational Psychologists to ensure a sustainable supply of educational psychologists to meet potential future needs.”—[Written Answers, 22 September 2014; S4W-22513]
That was more than five months ago. I hope that the partnership working that has taken place since then has resulted in some positive news that we will hear about in the minister’s summing-up.
As Malcolm Chisholm suggested, we are very good in this Parliament at passing legislation on named persons and additional support needs or legislation that puts a statutory requirement on local authorities in Scotland to provide educational psychology services. However, when it comes to ensuring that the appropriately qualified and trained people are in place, we find that the funding has been cut, with the result that there is a 70 per cent decrease in applications for training.
As Malcolm Chisholm—I was going to say “Rifkind”—also pointed out, educational psychologists are not just an added extra and the courses that they take are not just little hobby courses. Educational psychologists are essential in addressing inequalities, which is something that the Government says that it is in favour of doing, and in promoting early and effective intervention to support the wellbeing of children and young people across Scotland. They also play a valuable role in establishing continuity of support for children and young people in the often very difficult transition from child to adult services and other key services.
Despite that, the last Scottish Government review of the provision of educational psychology services was in 2002—13 years ago. That hardly sends out the signal that this is a valued and essential workforce that is critical to the health and wellbeing of children across Scotland. Across the chamber, we all agree that attainment in schools is a major challenge, and a major function of educational psychologists is to address inequality and gaps in the attainment and achievement outcomes of those in society who are vulnerable and at risk.
The Scottish Government constantly tells us that higher education is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. Well, that is not the case for educational psychologists.
George Adam’s contribution was excellent. I ask the minister to explain what recourse parents have when councils fail to provide an educational psychologist, which is deemed to be a statutory requirement.
12:51
I come to the chamber quite disappointed, because I raised the issue with Mike Russell on at least a couple of occasions, and with Alasdair Allan. The Government has allowed the situation to come about, especially over the past few years, and it has taken no action to do anything about it since members across the chamber raised their concerns.
It is often useful to look at the truth and the stories behind some of the statistics that we are presented with. In the briefing paper that we received today from the national Scottish steering group for educational psychologists, table 4 shows the numbers of applicants, withdrawals and students taking up courses at each of the universities that offer the qualification in educational psychology. When the bursaries changed for the 2012 intake, 13 students withdrew from the course at the University of Dundee.
One of the students who withdrew came to my surgery in Dundee and told me her story. She was a very well-qualified Oxford graduate who was working in schools in Angus. She was a young teacher who had a great rapport with the young people she was teaching in quite a deprived area—so much so that she wanted to train to become an educational psychologist. However, when the Government changed the funding arrangements, she was precluded from doing so. Being a very conscientious young woman, she gave me all the information available to her and told me that it made more sense for her to go back down south to train as an educational psychologist, as she could afford to train there. She would have to relocate with her husband to work in a school down south. When that young woman left my surgery that day, I thought that it was a great shame that the children of Arbroath and the north-east of Scotland would not have her services in the very important area of educational psychology.
During First Minister’s question time today, Liz Smith was right to draw a link between mental health and educational psychology, because we know that access to educational psychology can be a preventative measure and can lead to early intervention in relation to poor mental health.
I think of the waiting lists to see educational psychologists in my home city of Dundee. At my surgery, I have spoken to parents who are anxious and worried that something is not quite right with their children’s behaviour, happiness or general wellbeing and who have been told that they will have to wait for weeks and weeks before their children are able to see an educational psychologist.
Mary Scanlon was right to point out that the Government has a statutory duty—a legal duty—to provide educational psychology services. The Government has been in place for eight years, but it has let the workforce age to the point at which we are about to lose most of our qualified educational psychologists, which is extremely worrying.
I will end on a point about the preventative agenda that I made in the chamber a few weeks ago. Every minister in Nicola Sturgeon’s Cabinet needs to take the Christie commission report off the shelf and dust it down. The recommendations that Campbell Christie spent a long time working on are about the preventative agenda in our public services, and educational psychology is a very good example in that regard. I urge the minister to rethink the options in relation to bursaries and the number of educational psychologists he is planning to train.
12:55
As others have done, I congratulate David Stewart on bringing this important debate to Parliament. David Stewart’s motion highlights an imbalance in respect of educational psychologists in Scotland. Demand is rising and supply is falling; combine that with an ageing workforce and it all points to a worsening situation. The British Psychological Society’s Scottish division of educational psychology report states that a quarter of educational psychologists may retire in just four years. That is alarming.
According to the workforce planning meeting for educational psychologists in November 2011, nearly a third of educational psychologists in Scotland are aged 55 and over and are likely to retire over the next five years. George Adam hinted that that is not a new problem but an on-going one. However, the Scottish children’s services coalition highlighted the increased demand that we now face. The number of children who have additional support needs increased from 69,587 in 2010 to more than double that—140,542, to be precise—by 2014. That is, of course, partly due to increased awareness, but it is increased demand, nonetheless.
Early intervention by educational psychologists is critical; it is also statutory. It is part of the GIRFEC strategy and is crucial if we are to deliver the ambitions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The British Psychological Society highlights the issue and has stated that it is a
“worrying picture given the rising levels of need among Scotland’s children and young people”.
The society goes on to say that
“This pressure on existing services jeopardises the national policy objectives to promote early and effective intervention to support the wellbeing of children and young people across Scotland”.
Educational psychologists are vital in helping children and young people who struggle with education. In the past, those young people have felt isolated; they have felt let down by the education system and therefore by society. That often led to underachievement, frustration and low morale. Educational psychologists’ work in providing support through therapeutic behaviour-management programmes, and in personalising the needs of our young people is crucial. It is therefore vital that no matter where in Scotland the young person is, he or she has access to educational psychologists at the earliest possible point—as timeously as possible. Educational psychologists provide the support that our teachers and parents need to provide the necessary strategies for those young people to achieve, to learn and to participate in our education system, in society and in their future workplaces.
I mentioned that supply and demand for educational psychologists are out of kilter. That is partly because we are not training enough educational psychologists—not just to meet the rising demand but to replace current psychologists who are ageing and retiring.
The educational psychology workforce planning meeting minutes for 8 March 2013 state that the University of Strathclyde’s representative considered that for their area, 20 students each year are needed to graduate from the programme to keep things in equilibrium, but in 2013-14, just 17 students were on that course. The Scottish division of educational psychology report also states that we need to train more people. We have to look at why that is; it has been mentioned already. The Scottish children’s services coalition makes it clear in its briefing:
“The removal in 2012 of the bursary paid to each trainee by the Scottish Government, coupled with a very limited loan facility, means that new trainees need to have access to around £25,000 each year for two years to self-fund course fees, travel and living expenses. This has led to a 70% drop in applicants”.
That is a poor record for the Government. If we are serious about our statutory duty to provide educational psychology services for our children and young people, the Government must address the imbalance between supply and demand in relation to educational psychologists in Scotland. I repeat that it is our statutory duty.
13:00
I congratulate David Stewart on bringing the debate to the chamber and I welcome the opportunity to contribute.
It cannot be denied that educational psychologists play a vital role in schools and education establishments throughout Scotland in assisting many children and young people, many of whom endure deep social and emotional problems. There can also be no denying that the number of children who are identified as having additional support needs has increased dramatically in the past five years—it has more than doubled to 140,542 in 2014. It would be expected that such an increase would have led to a similar increase in the number of qualified professionals who are available to support and assist those young people, their families and school staff. Sadly, however, as we have heard in the debate, the figures show that that is not the case. Given that more than 140,000 children are identified as having additional support needs, it is counterintuitive and unacceptable that Scotland has only 394 full-time educational psychologist posts. The record high was 443 in 2009, which was not enough even then, but the number has since dropped by 11 per cent, and in 2015 we have only 15 more educational psychologists than we had in 2001.
The problem is so serious that the Scottish children’s services coalition noted earlier this year that the increase in demand, coupled with cuts to local authority budgets and the withdrawal of funding for trainee educational psychologists has left the profession close to tipping point. That comes one year after the report that David Stewart’s motion highlights and which states that the number of trained educational psychologists is “dangerously low.”
By taking the decision in 2012 to remove the bursary that is paid to each trainee, the Scottish Government has forced applicants to secure £25,000 per year of their own funding for a two-year course. That is a massive obstacle to people who have a burning desire to enter the profession in order to support young people, and it restricts the ability of people from poorer communities to undertake training. The 70 per cent drop in the number of applications that has been mentioned is proof of that.
Emma Brown, the chair of the Scottish division of educational psychology’s training committee—which Malcolm Chisholm quoted earlier—said:
“we have significant concerns over the impact of this proposal ... and the potential impact upon educational psychology services’ ability to fulfil their duties locally and nationally.”
Those “significant concerns” seem to have been borne out.
As has been mentioned, it is of concern that up to 25 per cent of existing educational psychologists are set to retire within the next four years. Although I accept many of George Adam’s points about local authorities coming together to pool such specialist services, there is a low level of educational psychologists and such a high level of demand that even authorities that pool their resources struggle to provide the service.
It is of utmost importance that the Scottish Government take action now to look at that 70 per cent drop in the number of people entering the profession. Scotland remains well short of the number of educational psychologists that is required, so the Government needs to take action to ensure that children with additional support needs, their families and school staff receive the support that is not only statutory, but which they deserve and need. That is why Government should look at the issue again.
13:05
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the role of educational psychologists. As has been made clear during the debate, they make a significant and critical contribution to supporting children and young people who have additional support needs. I value their contribution highly.
I believe that the motion is based on a report that was prepared by the profession in September 2013 at the request of the national Scottish steering group for educational psychologists, which is chaired by a senior official of the Scottish Government. The purpose of the report was to provide information about the current workforce of educational psychologists in order to inform workforce planning for the profession across Scotland.
To take up a question from Mary Scanlon about recent progress on that front, my officials have, through the national steering group, been working in close partnership with the educational psychology profession—including with a representative from the SDEP, which is the Scottish arm of the British Psychological Society—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Education Scotland and the universities that train educational psychologists. The purpose of that is, of course, to ensure that within the real constraints that exist we anticipate and minimise risk to educational psychology service provision—for example, by ensuring that there is a sustainable supply of educational psychologists to meet potential future needs and to make interventions, as necessary.
The Scottish Government is funding a seconded position in Education Scotland for an individual to work in 2015 with the national steering group on workforce planning for educational psychology services. I have seen the project plan for that role, which includes work to capture detail on the staffing situation for educational psychologists, and sampling to establish the range of work that they undertake.
I acknowledge that there has been a significant increase since 2010 in the number of pupils who are recorded in national statistics as having additional support needs. I do not dispute that there are pressures in that respect, but I remind all members who made the point that the number of children with additional support needs has doubled that that of course reflects a very dramatic change in how the numbers are counted. Prior to that change, the extra pupils were already part of the school population and were having their additional support needs met.
The minister may well be coming to this point, but the two crucial aspects are reinstatement of the bursary, which was taken away in 2012, and the setting of a minimum number of educational psychologists, by local authority. The analogy is the situation of clinical psychologists: trainees still receive a bursary, their numbers have been effectively doubled and there is a set minimum number across Scotland. Our taking a leaf out of their book would get us well down the route to solving the problem.
I met some clinical psychologists at an event this morning. I understand the point that David Stewart is seeking to make, but it is important to stress that although there has been a reduction in the number of people applying for the educational psychology course—I freely admit that—there has not been a reduction in the number of people going through the course and coming out as educational psychologists.
That is not my point.
I understand David Stewart’s point, but I must make some progress—not least in responding to the other point that he made.
It remains—rightly—for local authorities to decide on the number of educational psychologists that they employ, and on prioritisation and delivery of educational psychologist’s services. Mary Scanlon asked a good question about what recourse parents have if local authorities fail in their duty to provide services. They have recourse to mediation and independent adjudication, and to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland on those important issues.
Teaching and support staff have been trained in identifying, assessing and meeting needs, and we have developed national standards and guidance, such as the autism toolbox and dyslexia toolkit, to support them. That ensures that educational psychologists’ work is directed at the most vulnerable at a time when psychological intervention can have the greatest impact.
A partnership model based on need means that, at each stage of intervention, children are provided with the most appropriate package of support to meet their needs.
To answer David Stewart’s second point, I note that the profession has expressed concern about the impact of the withdrawal of grant funding on the training of educational psychologists. The decision to reduce funding of students on educational psychology courses was made as part of the 2011 spending review to bring it in to line with standard postgraduate support. It must be stressed that the course is a postgraduate course.
I have heard the reasoning about its being a postgraduate course before, from Michael Russell, and I understand it. However, does Dr Allan accept that there is a strong vocational element to educational psychology? If we are to have the same funding structure for dentists, doctors and nurses, a similar funding structure should be in place for educational psychology. It really does not stack up to compare the course to an MSc in art history or an MSc in science when it is a vocational qualification for teaching in our schools.
The grant funding was introduced in response to a staffing shortage in the sector in 1998 that, by 2011, was not evident in the same way. The Scottish budget is facing real and significant long-term cuts in the coming years and difficult decisions have had to be made about prioritisation of spending. However, in recognition of the importance of ensuring that appropriate numbers of educational psychologists were trained, it was decided that the student fee loan support of £3,400 would be available for both years of the course.
Will the minister give way briefly?
I must make some progress.
The MSc in educational psychology is the only postgraduate course on the prescribed course list where that is the case. Also, from the academic year 2015-16, it will be one of a small number of courses on a prescribed list for which eligible students can apply for living-cost loans of up to £4,500 a year. The national steering group will be interested—as will I—to see the findings of new work that is being done in the area.
As I said, I accept that the removal of funding has had an impact on the number of students who apply to study educational psychology, but the numbers of applications before the removal of funding had reached comparatively high levels—212 in 2011.
The minister has not touched on this, but I am sure that he agrees that the crucial point about the 70 per cent reduction in applications is that the social mix is wrong; very few working class kids are applying. That is the problem, and it is the effect of the removal of bursaries.
I entirely accept the argument that we must do everything we can to ensure that we have the appropriate social mix in our universities. That is why, for example, this Government believes in free education for undergraduate courses and it is why we have been unambiguously behind that.
I realise that time is running out, but I want to say something about the motion.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I must make progress now.
I am saddened by the suggestion in the motion that the quality of candidates has dropped. Indeed, it is more than a suggestion. To be offered a place on the MSc in educational psychology, applicants must demonstrate that they meet a prescribed standard. Once they are accepted for training, trainee educational psychologists must complete a demanding and rigorous two-stage process in order to qualify fully. Those standards have not been compromised, and the lodger of the motion and its supporters have in the debate offered no evidence for that claim.
I also refute the suggestion that there has been a fall in the standards of assessment of additional support needs. I am unclear on what evidence that claim in the motion is based.
Let me put the matter back in context by way of conclusion. I thank members for taking part in the debate. At points it may have seemed not to be in the character of a members’ business debate, but it has been an important debate on a subject that we all accept is crucial to the future of Scotland and Scotland’s children, so I thank members for taking part in it.
We have made strides forward, and through the work that we are doing we are demonstrating our commitment to supporting the educational psychology profession to provide support to all our children and young people, and especially those with additional support needs.
13:14 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Chilcot Inquiry