I'll deal with the points about the contract at the end. On your practical points about flexible working and a potentially inflexible approach, it would help to have some specific examples, because, really, that should be taken through not just individual employment relations, but, actually, at a strategic level in the partnership forum, where Government, NHS employers and trade unions across all sectors actually sit down. It's exactly the sort of thing they should discuss. If there is an individual issue, it's for the individual employer and their workplace, but, actually, if it's suggested that there is a more strategic challenge, then that's the place at which it should be addressed. And I expect it to be addressed, because it isn't just women who are opting for part-time careers, actually, more and more men do as well. Were I not in this job, it's entirely possible that I would be working part-time and my wife would be carrying on working full-time, and I'd be happy to do that, and there are many, many more men in that position through their careers, for a variety of reasons. So, it's an issue about the workforce and it's part of what should make a career in the health service an attractive one.

Of course, when it comes to the costs, we've rehearsed in this Chamber and in committee before the positive effect on the NHS of actually introducing an agency cap in rates at the time, and also the work that we're trying to do around locum. And, actually, the locum register is part of that. We want to make sure that, actually, taking on a permanent post is attractive, and that's some of the work we're doing alongside different professionals.

On the data accuracy, I hope that'll help to inform the HIW review, because I'm confident in the figures that I've given, because we're comparing like with like over the last few years, but I want to be assured that the data is properly accurate and does take into account variances in work patterns. On the HIW review, I'm not wedded to the figure of 136 forever more; that's why there's a review. I recognise the potential to overfill from our training places. That's why, as I've pointed out in my statement—in response to Darren Millar as well—I made a decision to flex upwards the training places that are available, because there's capacity in the system to do that. The figure of 200 that's been proposed I don't think is one that has lots of evidence around it about it being the right figure. There's a general acceptance, though, that we have some capacity to train more, hence my decision to be able to do that, but more so, to have a better understanding of where we could and should be, that will definitely be considered within the HIW review, as I said—the numbers, the location and the quality of that training experience. And, of course, I will keep Members updated about the advice I receive and any decisions I make, or that HIW make, about the future training capacity and nature.

Now, on your point about the contract negotiations, of course, I've been very well aware of the voice of general practitioners over the weekend, expressing their view on where we are in the negotiations. I will take some care in what I say, because what I don't want to do is to have those negotiations in public, because I don't think that's appropriate. And, as I said at the end of Darren Millar's series of questions, this is a time for calm and trust and good faith on all sides, and that means that I have to wear some of the flack that is flying around, because the negotiators need the time and the space to sit down and reach an agreement. The update letter that GPs have received puts the trade union side and their take on negotiations about where we are, and I've been a trade union negotiator in giving messages to people that I represent, and it's not always a view that the employer has agreed with, but you reach the end point of a negotiation to try and find a place where everybody thinks there's a good agreement for them, and, crucially, in this place, a good agreement for the public. So, there are a range of different issues within the negotiation. 

I do want to be clear, though, about the indemnity proposals. The one-off adjustment to take forward the state-backed indemnity scheme is exactly the mechanism that is being used in England as well—exactly the mechanism that is being used. And, in fact, in the adjustment that is being proposed, I don't just think it is proportionate, but it is a better offer than is on the table and has been agreed in England. There's something here about some honesty in our conversations about this, but the conversation is not complete. So, I'm certainly not looking to have a new area of disagreement with the BMA; I'm looking to find a point where we can all agree on having a good deal for general practice and more investment into general practice. And that's the message that I hope GPs can hear loudly and clearly from me, and, next week, negotiators will sit down again. And, when we are at an end point where there is agreement, I will be more than happy to update Members on the agreement that I am optimistic that we will still reach.