Leo Pekkala and Andy Demeulenaere.

Q17 The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Communications and Digital Committee. My name is Baroness Barbara Keeley and I am the chair of the committee. I welcome our two witnesses and thank them for joining us today. As today’s session is focused on international comparisons, all of our witnesses are joining us virtually. The session is being broadcast live and a transcript will be taken. Our witnesses will have the opportunity to make corrections to that transcript where they feel that is necessary.

During today’s session some committee members may need to declare relevant interests and if so they will do that when they first speak. I do not have any interests to declare. I will start by asking our two witnesses to introduce themselves, starting with Mr Pekkala from Finland.

Leo Pekkala: Good afternoon. I am from the National Audiovisual Institute of Finland.

Andy Demeulenaere: I am the co-ordinator of the Flemish Knowledge Centre for Digital and Media Literacy, which is called Mediawijs.

Q18 The Chair: I will ask you first to give us a brief overview of your organisation and the media literacy work it delivers. Mr Pekkala.

Leo Pekkala: The National Audiovisual Institute is a governmental agency under the Ministry of Education and Culture. Specifically, we are currently under the Minister for Culture. We co-ordinate the implementation of the Finnish national media education policy. We promote media literacy and a safer media environment. Connected to that, for example, we co-ordinate the Finnish Safer Internet Centre. We represent Finland in a number of international working groups and committees officially, especially in the EU context. We conduct some surveys, do some research and work closely with the academic community in Finland.

A lot of our work on promoting media literacy is, of course, awareness raising, where we work together with the National Agency for Education, our sister government organisation, which is responsible for the school curriculum. We do a lot of awareness-raising campaigns—for example, an annual media literacy week and a game week in Finland—and those activities continue throughout the year. Connected to this awareness-raising, we produce a lot of different types of training materials and awareness-raising materials for different age groups and for different contexts. Thank you.

Andy Demeulenaere: The Flemish Knowledge Centre for Digital and Media Literacy was set up in 2013 by the Flemish Government, but it is not a governmental agency. It is financed by the Minister of Media within a much larger research non-profit. Our aim or our assignment by the Government is to stimulate and co-ordinate digital and media literacy throughout Flanders for the whole of the population, from zero to about 111. The definition of digital and media literacy in that way is as a competence, which is the whole of the knowledge, skills and attitudes to actively, critically, creatively and consciously use digital technology and media to participate better in society.

We do this in four large themes. One is digital inclusion, the second is creating and making with digital technology and media, the third is news and information literacy and the fourth is online risks and opportunities. We work together with a lot of stakeholders, which we will probably go into later. The first thing we do is set up networks and bring together collaborations to scale up interventions. The second thing we do is train people and support professionals. The third thing is that we develop practice. The fourth is that we also have the assignment to follow up on what is happening in research and also do some surveys. The fifth is that we support the Government in policy development on this topic.

Q19 Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge: How does your organisation fit within the wider media literacy landscape in your country? It would be helpful to have a focus on whether your country is guided by a single national policy or strategy and, if so, what benefits or challenges this brings.

Leo Pekkala: Thank you, Baroness Owen. We have had a national media literacy policy since 2013. The current version is from 2019 and just today we launched a survey to all stakeholders in Finland to respond as part of the evaluation of the policy. This year we will continue the evaluation and, based on the analysis, we will then revise the policy in co-operation and open consultation with all the stakeholders in the field.

This has been really important for us because the policy has been like a backbone for all our work, supporting our work but also supporting the work of different types of organisations. For example, non-governmental organisations have been able to refer to the national policy and the guidelines and objectives in the policy when they have been applying for funding. We see this as an important tool.

The policy is not very hands-on. It is rather a more high-level policy so that it will stay valid over time due to the rapid changes in the media landscape. Our intention for the revised version in 2025 is the same. We will not make any specific or named actions in the policy; it will be more an abstract goal-oriented document. I hope I responded to your question.

Andy Demeulenaere: I think one thing that we always have to remark on before we look into national policies for Belgium is that the policy is devolved for certain areas. That means that for the Flemish region, the French-speaking region and the German-speaking region, education, culture and media are devolved policies, while things like telecoms, privacy and so forth are national policies. That means that the media literacy policy is at the level of the region. For the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium the Minister of Media for Flanders is responsible politically and the Department for Culture, Youth and Media is the department that is responsible for media literacy. They mainly work through us, which means that they fund us; they have multi-annual strategic funding agreements with us where they put strategic goals forward. We are more the motor that gets others involved, that gets other ministries involved: the Ministry of Education, for example, but also the Ministry of Care and Welfare, because there is a lot of work to be done in care institutions or in parental guidance.

Through that work we try to set up government-wide and sector-wide action on media literacy. There has been a new Flemish Government since October. The Government are now really getting up to speed and the Minister of Media has just decided to set up a horizontal action plan for media literacy, focusing on young people and social media, for the next five years.

Q20 Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge: In your country, who is in charge of the media literacy policy/strategy? Andy, you touched on this a little bit already. Also, who are the other stakeholders you work with and how is this work co-ordinated? Leo, do you want to come back on that?

Leo Pekkala: Thank you, yes. The ultimate responsibility, of course, is with the Minister [1] of Education and Culture, but we are their office to implement and co-ordinate the policy. It is really up to us to see that the goals will be reached. Now that we are evaluating and revising the policy, it is up to us: we have been given the task to draft the new policy for Finland for media literacy.

How we co-ordinate and work with other stakeholders is a key element of our work. We are a very small government office. Finland is geographically speaking a rather large country and we would not have any resources to work locally in different regions of Finland. We need to rely on co-operation with organisations that are reaching out to people at a local level. We work together with different ministries and government offices, but also the local and regional authorities because they are responsible for school education.

Some very important co-operation that we do is with non-governmental organisations, which are taking care of work, for example, with families with young children. In that way, we feel that the co-operation and cross-sectoral information sharing is essential to our work. It is one of the main reasons why we have been rather successful with very limited resources. Thank you.

Andy Demeulenaere: I am just trying to formulate it. If we look at who is responsible, on the one hand for media literacy it is the Minister of Media, but of course to bring media literacy within certain sectors the sectoral Minister has a responsibility, especially if it is about education, for instance.

I said that we cover four topics and digital inclusion is one of them. Since Covid there has been a lot of investment in digital inclusion and that has been now structurally embedded in the equal opportunities policy. That means that the Minister of Equal Opportunities funds us structurally for the digital inclusion side and the Minister of Media funds us structurally for the media literacy side.

Then looking at how we involve stakeholders and how we co-ordinate the policy, on the one hand, in setting up the networks we have been trying to—no, first of all we have an advisory committee, which is also mandatory and mandated by the Government, and which brings together all kinds of stakeholders. It means that there are actors from the field, non-profit organisations that we support or work with somehow. There are actors from the media sector; the public broadcaster and the representatives of the news media in Flanders are in our advisory committee. There is an international expert from the Netherlands. There are several researchers, professors from universities, and so on. There are also some government agencies, including the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Media, who are in our advisory committee and who, several times a year, look at our plans and our long-term strategy and give us advice or steer us in another direction.

That is one way of getting the network involved, but I think other things are much more important, including bringing people together. We organise network events and often do them very specifically for a sector or for organisations that work in a specific field, or also in general a media literacy event or a specific networking event around disinformation, digital inclusion and so on. We organise all kinds of networking events and we try to follow up as well as we can with all different partners, be they governmental partners—other ministries or non-profit partners in the field—or the umbrella organisations for schools and other sectors. We get them involved as much as we can and we try to do it more topically than we used to.

Ten years ago, we started very generally and set up platforms to bring people together, which were quite wide, and now we try to focus more on specific topics or sub-themes of media literacy. Through these contacts we formulate memoranda for the elections, we start up new initiatives and co-operations and we get other organisations involved in the interventions that we organise.

The Chair: Lord Dunlop has a supplementary question.

Q21 Lord Dunlop: Do you work directly with the big tech platforms and what role do they play in promoting media literacy in your respective countries?

Leo Pekkala: Thank you for the question. We have some co-operation with them but, to be honest, not that much, because most of the big platforms are not located in Finland and as a government authority we have fewer opportunities to work with them. Some of our partners, especially non-governmental organisations, are working much more closely with the platforms because they are able also to get some financial support from them, which we are not able to do. That has also more or less directed part of the work.

Since we are also a regulating authority for the audiovisual media services directive in Finland, and I am the highest government official for age ratings for films, TV programmes and digital games and also to some extent online content, it creates a little bit of a different relationship with the platforms for us particularly. But they do some very good work with other organisations in Finland.

Andy Demeulenaere: The interesting thing for us is that we are not a governmental agency, which means that we sometimes have more freedom and sometimes have less to say than Leo does. That being said, we do not work that much with the platforms, especially if we are looking at the bigger platforms, international platforms. If they invite us for a round table or a conference, we go and listen, we interact with them to talk about what they are doing and what we are doing. I do not think we have had any concrete co-operations, except that we have used a conference space that belonged to or was rented at that time by Google. We have done that.

The other thing we are doing is a second project that is funded by the European Media and Information Fund, which is a fund that is run by the Gulbenkian Foundation in Portugal and the EDMO Europe, but the money they have for that fund was supplied by Google at one time. However, we do not have direct funding by Google or anyone. We see that internationally at Google level they have the Be Internet Awesome or a certain game with activities connected to it that you can use in education, and they fund in a lot of countries an organisation that somehow promotes this to parents or schools. For Belgium that is Libraries Without Borders, which does free workshops on the topic of digital safety and a few specific topics within media literacy in free workshops for schools. Thank you.

Q22 Viscount Colville of Culross: Good afternoon. My first question is to Leo Pekkala. Can you explain to me how media literacy is incorporated into formal education in Finland? You have this concept of multiliteracy, which is teaching media literacy across 20 core subjects. That sounds very ambitious. Can you tell me how that works?

Leo Pekkala: Thank you for your question. I must say that this is a topic that we have been discussing a lot in Finland over the years and the discussion is ongoing all the time. Together with my international colleagues, the question is always brought to the table of whether media literacy should be a special subject in its own right or should be, as in our case, integrated into all subject areas. There are two sides and both have good arguments.

I am personally for the model that we have, because it means that, in theory, every teacher has to do something related to media literacy in their work. If it were a subject, it could be just one teacher in each school that would ever talk about it to the students and we probably would lose a lot. That is why we have always had this approach. Even before the term “multiliteracy”, we used to have media education and then before that communication studies or mass media studies. Those were integrated into the whole national core curricula.

It means that there is a great variety between different schools and teachers, because in our system teachers have great freedom. We require that they all have a master’s degree with pedagogical qualifications. We do not have an inspection system and we do not have national testing. We trust our teachers. That, of course, means that if you really do not want to do anything on media literacy, there is nobody watching you, so you can leave it out, but we know that a lot of teachers are doing a lot of work in this area.

This approach has its own good sides, and also its insights, but we think it works better than having it as its own subject.

Q23 Viscount Colville of Culross: Andy Demeulenaere, I understand that the media strategy in Flanders in secondary education is aimed across the curriculum, creating attitudes to digital media much more generally than in just one specific subject. How does that work in your view?

Andy Demeulenaere: I agree with Leo on the transversal nature of media literacy and digital media literacy. Just as a side note, we choose to use the term digital and media literacy as much as we can and not just media literacy or digital literacy. We see that, as soon as you get somebody online and with technical digital skills, you also need the social, creative and critical skills that come with media literacy to actually do it and not be more vulnerable in the digital space. That is one thing.

On the other hand, with converging media it is very difficult to separate the digital and the media parts of it, so it is not very productive to have a discussion between what is digital and what is media from our point of view. That means that we look indeed at everything that has to do with digitalisation, digital technology and media within the curriculum or within the attainment goals that have been set by the Flemish Parliament.

It is more of a cross-curricular subject. Well, it is a transversal subject, it is not really within a specific subject. There have been a lot of discussions and sometimes we get a bit disparaged because of the freedom that that offers to ignore everything that has to do with digital or media literacy, but I agree with Leo that it probably is the best thing. I think that you will limit the remit of digital and media literacy within education if you put it in one subject and it will be very one-sided. It is much more interesting that all teachers can have an assignment there.

The other side of the coin is that if there is not a specific subject, you need to supply or provide much more specific support. That means that the need for training for teachers and providing the tools for practice is much clearer and more necessary than if you have a curriculum where you can define very specifically, “This is what you have to do at that time”. If we look at the digital side, teachers are often not that confident in their digital skills. If we look at the media, more the content side, they are often a bit afraid or very normative in how they look at media and afraid that things like conspiracy theories or other touchy subjects in the classroom—not to mention everything that has been going on with “Adolescence”—might explode in the classroom and they do not really know how to handle that.

We see that there is a big need for teachers to be supported there. There is a big need for policy and for tools on how to tackle these subjects and I think that is bigger because if it is not a specific subject, nobody feels responsible for making the overview. It is a lucky thing for Flanders that the Minister of Media set up our knowledge centre, so we provide a cross-curricular strand from three to 18 year-olds, for the whole of education, where teachers can look and say, “Okay, what goals should we attain at this age? How can we do it?” We provide a lot of training and tool development that they can actually use in education.

Q24 Viscount Colville of Culross: Thanks very much. I want to ask you more widely about society in Flanders. You have this strategy that is focused on inclusiveness, aiming at children, young people, seniors, people in poverty, and people with physical or mental disabilities. How do you train up and support such a variety of groups? Surely each group needs something completely different. You have talked about supporting teachers in formal education, but how do you support and train up teachers when you are dealing with such a wide range of needs?

Andy Demeulenaere: I think the important thing there is that for everything that you want to reach in society, when it is a very small centre or a small agency like Leo has, you cannot do everything yourself. You need an intermediary that is in between. If it is in supporting families or supporting care institutions who work with people with disabilities or with older people or in youth care or in schools or special needs schools, every time you have to go and look at the organisations and the intermediaries that need to get involved and convince them, “Okay, this is something that you actually need to take part in”.

We have the media coach training course, which is a 10-day course spread over a school year with an online component. It is 10 days of actual training and then also an internship programme within your own organisation, where we train people to look at the topic of digital and media literacy and introduce it within their whole organisation together with their colleagues. It is not training teachers on what they should do in the classroom. It is training a teacher to get all their colleagues involved to see how they are going to do this from a whole-school perspective. It is the same thing for youth care professionals, getting youth care professionals to do that for their youth care institution. That is the way that we try to work there.

Specifically if we look at the digital inclusion sites, we also use local councils, local civil servants who implement digital inclusion policies within their local authority and also for the local organisations and public in their community. Then we train them to do that; I think you need this pyramidal structure to have some impact in the whole of society.

Q25 Viscount Colville of Culross: Leo, I want to ask you about a completely different subject. One of the areas we are looking at is the definition of media literacy. There has been a very good report by Professor Edwards at the London School of Economics, which has said that in Finland you concentrate less on the potential harms of being online and focus on the opportunities provided by the digital world. Do you recognise that? Do you focus on critical thinking and creativity and participation, such as how to get the best out of healthcare or financial information from the internet?

Leo Pekkala: Yes, I do recognise that. I am delighted that it has also been recognised by someone else, because that is really the approach that we have been trying to promote. From 2012, when I was chosen to build this department within the Government, we decided that we would oppose the so-called “threat discourse”. We recognise the threats and we work together with several organisations to work against the different harmful content in the media environment.

We also want to promote the positive aspects of it, because our lives are so digitalised, and we want to promote the education of young children to become full members of society. If they do not learn how to think critically and use their own skills and knowledge critically, as members of a democratic society, we will be in a worse situation than we are now in the world. Therefore, I believe that we need to recognise the harmful things and fight against the criminal parts of the media environment, but we also need to remember that, with most of the content, most of the time we spend in different media environments is positive. Thank you.

Viscount Colville of Culross: Thank you very much. That was very helpful.

Q26 Lord Knight of Weymouth: I need to start by putting my interests in respect of this inquiry on the public record. Forgive me, I have several interests in education, starting with being a co-owner of Suklaa, an education consultancy, which happens to be named after the Finnish word for chocolate. I am a director of the Council of British International Schools of the multi-academy Trust E-ACT, and I am advising, pro bono, a nascent not-for-profit start-up in media literacy through teaching journalism.

I am interested in the impact of media literacy initiatives in both of your countries. Mr Pekkala, I am interested in how you track progress in media literacy across the population, in adults and in children, and indeed how the EU might track the impact of its policy as well. If you can wrap anything up in that answer, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Leo Pekkala: Again, that is a very difficult topic that we have been discussing for a very long time, because measuring the media literacy levels, for example, for a whole nation is practically impossible. All the academic researchers are saying the same. In Finland in general, we are not big fans of national testing or indexes, even though in many of the international indexes we seem to be doing rather well. How we think of this is that our work is part of the more holistic educational and cultural landscape, where we build a kind of ethos for becoming a member of society. We think that when we look around to see whether our country is still functioning, our democratic institutions are functioning and people have a high trust in the political system and the media. We think that we have probably done part of that work to make it happen, but it is very difficult to measure.

On the other hand, I have worked for years now with colleagues in media-regulating authorities in the five Nordic countries. Over the last three months, we have done a survey where we have measured “certain aspects” —we express it in that way—related to media literacy. That is what we have done, and we hope to get the results in the next two to three weeks and start to analyse them. We get glimpses of what media literacy-related knowledge, skills and understanding people have in these different countries, but saying how much of that is due to our work and efforts is still very difficult—or even impossible.

Q27 Lord Knight of Weymouth: Does it make a difference thinking about it in the context of children as opposed to adults, or is it just hard across the piece?

Leo Pekkala: I think it is hard no matter what age we are talking about. Of course, children of school age are more used to different types of testing, and you can do different types of that. Can they understand, for example, what is an advertisement and what is a news article? You can test these types of things. Does it mean that they are media literate? Partly, maybe, but it is only one tiny little thing, so that is the problem with the measurements.

I know that there is a huge push from every country, basically—especially from politicians—that it would be nice to have these exact figures that we are at 8.9 and Belgium is at 9.2 in media literacy levels, but we just cannot do that. Unfortunately, I think that is the situation. On the other hand, it is fortunate that that is the situation, because testing often guides the actions of all the organisations that are responsible for promoting something. If there was national or international testing, all the organisations would start to prep everyone for the tests and then lose sight of the overall objective: why do we want people to be media literate?

Q28 Lord Knight of Weymouth: That is also an ongoing debate here, about the value of testing and inspection. It makes my next question really hard when I ask you: what are the successful programmes that we might want to copy here in the UK? Before you answer that, let me come to Mr Demeulenaere. From your point of view, how do you track the success of what you do? Clearly, you are accountable to various people who fund you. You must have some measures that you use to demonstrate success.

Andy Demeulenaere: It is indeed a difficult subject. I agree with Leo to a certain extent. It is very difficult. It is also one of the big discussions there could be: when is somebody media literate? Some people will say, “Well, if they are reading the newspaper they are media literate”, and some others will say that if they are not reading the newspaper they are not media literate. I think that is a difficult discussion sometimes: what are the key indicators that can show that somebody is media literate or not?

Research is making strides. It is going forward, and I think that there will be certain aspects and certain things that we can somehow measure in surveys. The problem with surveys is they are often self-reported and very fragmented. If you use bigger surveys and try to introduce a big topic like digital and media literacy, you do not have the space and the time to put that in, so you need to collect evidence at the societal level from everywhere—the OECD or PISA or the DESI numbers. It is not called that any more; it is the digital Europe survey from the EU. All these things can add to the knowledge base of seeing what people are good at in your country compared to other countries, which of course always has the danger that you are teaching to the test.

We try to work using theories of change, so for interventions we try to formulate theories of change. A lot of the funding indicators are output indicators and reach indicators, which is only part of what impact measurement is about. Impact measurement as a whole is very difficult because you must rely on societal surveys, which we do for children from six to 18 years-old every two years, and for parents every two years as well. We do surveys on: what they have; what they use; how they feel about it; whether there are specific things that they are worried about; where they can go if they have problems; and so on. It is not a specific measurement of media literacy, but it is very important evidence to base your policy on.

In between there is the outcome, and that means that you are not just producing something and reaching a lot of people with it; you also try to measure what the change is that you provide when you reach somebody with that. It can be in very small initiatives or small measurements even during the development cycle that you go and measure “What impact does this have?”

We can already make small steps in measuring outcome, to evaluate interventions much better or at a better level than just measuring outputs or reach. We know that with our week-long campaign for primary schools —it is for 10 to 12 year-olds, delivered together with the public broadcaster—we reach half of the primary schools in Flanders, which actively get involved in that campaign and those lessons every day on topics like cyber bullying. We can with a small sample go and test: what does this do in one or two or three classrooms? What is the change? How do young children react before the lesson, after the lesson, or even a few weeks later? Then we can extrapolate much more if we have some outcome within our reach.

Q29 Lord Knight of Weymouth: One thing that occurred to me while you were talking was: is the term “media literacy” helpful? It implies something fairly black and white that either you are literate or you are illiterate, whereas it feels like a spectrum of competence and confidence. I assume that is an ongoing debate that has been running as well, but do you have any comment on that?

Andy Demeulenaere: I think that is very true. I think it is a continuum and you must measure the continuum. Also, it is not just about knowledge. It is also about skills and how to communicate online and about regulating feelings and the amount of trust you might have in specific institutions. A lot of the time, critical thinking is put forward as the central part of it, which is okay. It is a technique that is one of the parts of it, but we must watch out that we are not fostering distrust but working on critical thinking instead. All these things come into play and often the measurement is only: do you know this, do you know that? You cannot measure: can you do this, how do you feel and can you regulate your feelings around that?

Q30 Lord Knight of Weymouth: In the interests of time, let me come back with two other questions, starting back with you, Mr Pekkala. First, I am interested in what works. If there is something that the UK is not doing that we should be doing, learning from Finland, what are the things that we should be doing? What works for you, and what are the barriers that we need to be aware of, apart from money, in making that happen?

Leo Pekkala: I will try to be short. First, what works best in the UK is something you must figure out, unfortunately. That is my standard answer, because you cannot just take something from somewhere else and drop it there and see how it works.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: We are seeking inspiration, so inspire us with what works for you.

Leo Pekkala: Yes, that is what we do. We are very openly sharing everything that we are doing and have been doing, and we are happy to share all the ideas and materials.

One of the things that I want to emphasise is that we should not forget the basic work, because quite often there is a demand for innovation. Now we have AI, before that we had smartphones and before that we had the internet and so on. We still need to remember to do the basic work of teaching children, first, how to read and write, basic skills, and then develop their critical thinking to become media literate. I think that is important. We see our work as part of a more holistic education approach in Finland.

Another thing that we noticed was that it was a good decision to create a national policy, specific policy guidelines for media literacy, which is a document that is not bound to a certain government period but is a longer-term document, so that the different parties have been able to accept the overall goals. That has been a great success, along with creating a national authority with powers to co-ordinate and see the implementation of the policy—and that is us.

Of course, I am a big fan of having media literacy in the school curricula one way or another, whatever works in each system, but it does really help.

Q31 Lord Knight of Weymouth: What has happened with your adults? That feels the hardest to me.

Leo Pekkala: It is, of course. We have a lot of work to do with adults, and I think it is the same situation everywhere. We are reaching large portions of the adult population, especially those with higher education and more interest in these kinds of issues. We also know that we are speaking the wrong language and the message is coming from the wrong direction, because it is coming from government authorities. We know that we cannot reach certain parts of the population, and I think it is a problem that there is no easy solution for.

To answer your question about the barriers, one of the barriers I think we face everywhere now is the concentration of the media landscape: the media services that people are consuming and using, and the global concentration where global service providers are using their algorithms to dictate what you easily see and hear. That is a big problem, especially now that some of them are clearly supporting ideas that are working against democracy and democratic principles. That is a big challenge for all of us.

You said “apart from money”, but I have been in multimedia literacy [2] for 30 years professionally, first at a university and now with the Government. One of the paradoxes is that the more we talk about the importance of media literacy, the fewer resources there are for promoting it. It does not necessarily mean that it is huge amounts of money, but it will require steady, long-term support for the policy and the curricula and then good support for a longer period of time. I think that is really the solution for that. Thank you.

Q32 Lord Knight of Weymouth: Thank you very much. Mr Demeulenaere, where do you sit on all of that? What works and what are the barriers?

The Chair: I should say that we have only a couple of moments left.

Andy Demeulenaere: Okay. What works is not taking digital and media apart, being age appropriate and starting from positive age appropriateness. That means not problematising everything in primary school, which does not help at all, but having a positive knowledge and skills mindset in primary school, growing in critical thinking further on and stimulating reading comprehension, because that is the basis on which we often need to work.

Secondly, on the institutional side, it is having an implementing body for the policy that Leo spoke of. You need something to go and get everybody involved; to train everybody; to scale up the best examples, the best practices; and to keep on stimulating and renewing the field and then going into different fields, not just education but also care and so on. I am going to leave it there, because I think time is up.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: Thank you. That is very helpful.

Q33 The Chair: Thank you both very much indeed. We are in the early stages. You are almost our first group of witnesses. This has been so interesting and helpful to our inquiry, in particular with the last points about what works and what we might do. But you are quite right that it is for us to work that out and that is what we are doing in our inquiry. Thank you very much indeed for your time. We appreciate it.

Leo Pekkala: Thank you very much for the good questions.

The Chair: Thank you.