Financial Investment and Deforestation

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

1st reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

If I am allowed to. Am I? No.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is a ten-minute rule Bill.

[Chris Grayling]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know how passionately the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) feels about this issue. I am glad to number him among the Bill’s sponsors.

Even where the head office team in an institution are working to try to change their approach, all too often decisions are being taken in a branch elsewhere by local teams that end up having the opposite effect. Whether through bond sales, banking services, investment funds or any other route, the reality is that the finance sector globally—this includes some institutions in London—is backing big international corporations that are still doing business directly or indirectly with those cutting down the rainforests. My Bill would change that. It would require financial institutions to include forest risk in the due diligence they do before making any investment or providing any banking service.

We are moving to require retailers to know whether the products that they sell contain forest-risk products from areas of illegal deforestation, and I want to see the investment community required to do the same. I know that regulation and deregulation in the City is a live topic at the moment, and I share the ambition to see the removal of unnecessary red tape that is imposed on our financial services. All too often, regulation ticks a box but does not actually make a difference. However, I do not think that regulation around deforestation is an example of that; it is not the same thing.

It is vital to all of us that we halt the loss of our natural habitats. We cannot afford to see the continuing loss of biodiversity in the Amazon or elsewhere, and the reality is that our financial services sector—whether it intends to or not—is financing those who make illegal deforestation possible. Businesses involved in financing projects around the world already do due diligence to work out financial viability and test risks. The Bill would not impose an extra process on them but simply add something to what they already do. That could make a massive difference. It is essential if we are to step up our combat against deforestation.

We face a problem around the world that is disastrous for all of us. It must stop. My Bill would make it much more difficult for financial institutions to provide the support that is enabling illegal deforestation to take place in too many parts of the world. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Chris Grayling, Andrew Selous, Jim Shannon, Chris Bryant, Wera Hobhouse and Barry Gardiner present the Bill.

Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 162).

Energy Prices Bill (Allocation of Time)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Energy Prices Bill:

Timetable

(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 pm.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.

(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Other proceedings

(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.

Miscellaneous

(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(11)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(12)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(13)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(15)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours—(Joy Morrissey.)

Manuscript amendment made: (a) in paragraph 1(b), leave out “7.00 pm” and insert “7.30 pm”.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Energy Prices Bill:

Timetable

(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 pm.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;

(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.

(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Other proceedings

(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.

Miscellaneous

(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(11)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(12)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(13)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(15)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Environment Bill

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I have sympathy with a lot of what she says about trees, but it is really important for the House to remember that it is also a matter of restoring marine conservation areas and wetlands. Many alternative habitats offer better ways of capturing carbon than simply planting new trees, so we must focus on the full range of habitats and not just on one aspect, however important trees are—and I will be talking later, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, about deforestation.

For this section of the debate, I want to talk about why I tabled new clause 4. I welcome the Minister’s comments and I welcome the announcements from the past week. What the Secretary of State said last week is enormously important if we are to start to reverse the decline of species in this country. It is tragic: back in the 1950s, there were something like 30 million hedgehogs in this country. Now, there are estimated to be 1.5 million. That is a catastrophic loss. When I was a child, hedgehogs were around in the garden all the time. I have never, as an adult, seen a hedgehog in my garden or anywhere near it. This is a tragic loss and one we have to work to reverse.

There is a whole range of reasons why that has happened, including habitat loss and the loss of wildlife corridors. It is enormously important, in looking at planning policies, that we focus on how we ensure we maintain wildlife corridors. It is also about the protections available. As the Minister knows, I have had a lively debate with the Department over the weeks. I welcome the approach she has taken. I understand the shortcomings in the existing law, but the reality is that it is nonsense that the hedgehog, which has had a 95% decline in its numbers, is not protected, whereas species that are much less in danger and whose numbers are recovering are protected.

The existing law protects primarily against malicious action by human beings, but of course not all species that are endangered have faced malicious action from human beings. A hedgehog does not face that, particularly, but some other animals on the list, such as the lagoon sandworm, valuable though it may be, is not in my view facing direct malicious action from human beings either. It faces threats to its habitat, and so do hedgehogs. We have a situation today whereby if a developer is going to clear a bit of land for development, he or she has to do exhaustive work to establish if newts are present. Much as we love the great crested newt, which is a fine species, it is not actually endangered in this country. We have laws about it in this country because it is endangered elsewhere in the European Union—happily not in the United Kingdom—but there is no obligation to see if other species such as the hedgehog are present. Developers can just bulldoze a hedgerow without checking if there are hedgehogs asleep in it.

I would like to see a holistic approach to any new development, where it is necessary to do a broader assessment of the presence of species and take action accordingly to protect them, and not have a focus on one individual animal as opposed to another. We have too many species that have declined in numbers. We should be protecting them all. Of course, we will need to develop in the future to ensure we have homes available for people in this country, but that needs to be done in a careful way: protecting wildlife corridors, protecting numbers, and ensuring that the steps we take maximise the potential to retain, restore or develop habitats of our species.

I welcome very much what the Minister has said today about hedgehogs. I think everyone in this House will welcome any measures we can take to protect them. I pay particular tribute to the former MP for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colvile, who was the first champion of hedgehogs in this House. I hope we will all be hedgehog champions going forward. We shall be holding the Minister’s feet to the fire to make sure her Department delivers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We should be going by video link to Mike Amesbury, but we shall come back to him.

Rail Review: Terms of Reference

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that, but when he talks about an integrated state monopoly, what else is he talking about except for returning to the days of British Rail? Labour might give it a different name, but it will still be British Rail. The reality is that Labour Members cannot explain the benefits that their policy would actually bring, and their leader does not even know which part of the railway is privatised and which is nationalised. They say their policies will cost nothing, yet the Library says that even taking back control of the rolling stock will cost £17 billion. On the “World at One”, the shadow rail Minister could not even explain how Labour’s policy would work. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) must not shout at the Secretary of State; he has had his go and others will have a go in a minute.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State answers the two questions in that intervention, may I say that interventions should be short and should make one point? Otherwise, it is not fair to Members at the end of the incredibly long list of speakers I have here. Those making interventions now at great length are taking time away from the Members who will be trying to speak, having sat here until after 9 o’clock tonight.

Also, there are lots of conversations going on around the Chamber; perhaps Members are negotiating which way they are going to vote this evening. If they are, will they do so either more quietly or somewhere else? The rest of the House wishes to hear the Secretary of State.

[Chris Grayling]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will respond to the last intervention, then take a couple more interventions and then make some progress: as you rightly say, lots of Members want to contribute.

I say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) that this is absolutely crucial to the UK as a whole. He is right that Birmingham airport is probably the most directly affected, although of course HS2’s arriving at Birmingham airport will create fantastic connections to that great airport from around the country.

Our forecasts show all regional airports growing, which is an indication that we need to provide the capacity at Heathrow. We can do so without damaging the prosperity of the regions. Indeed, it will enhance the prosperity of the regions, as their airports grow and their connections improve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady has made her point, and the hon. Lady—I mean the hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] I will start again. The hon. Lady has made her point. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which is not a point of order for me, but the matter is dealt with, I think.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me touch on the issue of climate change, which I was planning to come to in a moment. We are confident that we can deliver the expansion at Heathrow within our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008. Any increase in emissions that would have a material impact on our ability to meet our obligations would lead to a refusal. I can tell the hon. Lady that the independent Committee on Climate Change wrote to me two weeks ago setting out its views on the NPS. It works to a target that aviation emissions in 2050 should be no higher than they were in 2005. With more efficient aircraft and engines, improved ground operations and the use of biofuels, the CCC’s analysis estimates that the UK can accommodate that increase in air travel by 2050 while meeting our climate change obligations. We believe that an expanded Heathrow airport and a new runway are consistent with this target.

Rail Franchising

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The Secretary of State did use a phrase that included the words “not acceptable”. He might wish to repeat what he wanted to say in slightly different words, because the shadow Secretary of State has a point about the precise use of words in the Chamber.

[Chris Grayling]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is unacceptable to defend inappropriate strike action around the country by people who should not disrupt the lives of passengers. I wait with interest to hear any Labour Member say that the strikes are wrong. Sadly, I have not heard that for 18 months. I am waiting patiently. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough says from a sedentary position that it is about safety, even though the safety regulatory authorities say that it is not. That is the shame of it.

Rail Update

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I spoke to the metro Mayor this morning about this and the investments we need, and also about North Filton railway station. He clearly has a strong agenda to take forward investment in the suburban service around Bristol. I have also been to the port and looked at the point on the putative Henbury loop that would be the issue. We need to resolve that, and I absolutely understand the need to get those services working well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for patience and perseverance goes to Luke Pollard.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Fragmentation of the great western franchise risks locking in a poor deal for rail for the far south-west, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to match the commitment given by the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to fund the peninsula rail taskforce recommendations for faster journeys and a more resilient railway, and to ensure that we can unlock the investment we need for Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall?

Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies)

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We know that often on the railways, as on the roads, it is the small things that make a real difference. I hope that with decentralisation of Network Rail into a route-based structure, the autonomous local managing directors who have their own budgets will be much better placed to apply small amounts of money to small schemes that make a material difference to passengers. I believe that the approach we propose will make that more likely. There is a real opportunity for the east midlands to be early beneficiaries of this approach.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for patience and perseverance goes to Ian Lucas.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Transport for London and Merseyrail are successful vertically integrated train companies. Why, if we want more integration, do we not apply their successful model, which attracts public and private investment, to the rest of our railway network?

Strathclyde Review

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not impugning any Member of this House, so for the moment I will let him away with it.

[Chris Grayling]

It does not feel as though we are trying to move anything through the back door, given that I am standing in front of the House making a statement and setting out a report that has been prepared with a number of options for the Government to consider and undoubtedly for this House to debate before any legislative change could happen—if legislative change were to be adopted as a result of this report. There is a degree of faux outrage from the other side on this matter.

Let us be clear about what happens. This House has an elected mandate, unlike the House of Lords. Our majority Government have a democratic mandate to implement our manifesto, and that is what we have sought to do. The conventions that have guided the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons have existed for a very long time, and they have indeed broken down over many years. The Government’s view is that it is time to re-establish a framework for the relationship between the two Houses which reflects the fact that this is the elected House of Commons. That is the purpose of the report, and it sets out three options for all of us to consider. Of course it makes specific reference to the issue of financial matters. The Commons has had primacy over financial matters for centuries; there are already Commons-only statutory instruments on financial matters. What occurred this autumn was the first time that a financial matter that had come before the House of Lords had been rejected—it was the first time a fatal motion had been used. Over the previous decades there had been hardly any fatal motions on SIs. On reading this report—I again thank Lord Strathclyde for his work—it is my view that in many respects it gives the Lords a clearer and broader role in the consideration of secondary legislation, while also making it clear that ultimately the democratically elected Chamber has to have the final say.

When the shadow Leader of the House talks about using less secondary legislation and about the composition of the House of Lords, I simply look back to my first few years in this House, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that you were first elected in 1997, and I can say that I have no memory of a shortage of SIs being brought forward under the Labour Governments. I also have no memory of a shortage of appointments by Tony Blair of his friends and cronies to the House of Lords over an extended period, so I will take no lessons from Labour Members.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will have a calm and sensible debate this afternoon, and I hope that tempers will now be kept under control.

[Chris Grayling]

I did say that I would give way in a moment but just wanted to set out some remarks first; that was all.

This has been one of the frustrations of the debate on this issue. Anyone who reads these proposals will know full well that they do not exclude any Member of Parliament from any vote in this Chamber in which they can currently take part. It is simply not the case. Yet I keep hearing about MPs being excluded. That will simply not happen. I hope we will not hear that error repeated in today’s debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said. Of course, she, from her time in government, would not understand the logic of this process. You table a draft, you listen to the people who read it, you make some modifications, you have a debate, and you then have a vote. It is called consultation. Labour Members never did that when they were in office; they just published their proposals and voted them through with a large majority. In a shock development, we have actually listened to hon. Members’ comments. Labour Members ask for more time. The surprising thing is that the Labour Chief Whip spent the past few days going round Conservative Back Benchers saying, “Please, please vote for more time”, yet if she had just come and asked me for more time I would have given it to her—and now I have. But that is the way they operate.

Labour is now essentially an English and Welsh party, so the question for Labour Members is whether they are going to vote for extra rights for English and Welsh MPs on matters that affect only their constituencies. Is Labour going to back our proposals or vote against them? If it is going to vote against them, I look forward to debating that on the doorsteps of this country, because I know where the voters of England and Wales stand; the question is whether Labour Members stand alongside them.

On the hunting issue—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will not have louder noise coming from the Opposition Front Bench than from the Leader of the House. It’s just not on.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can’t help himself, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you’ll have to give him a bit of slack.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) talked about a back-door device. Since when has a statutory instrument in this House been a back-door device? Ninety minutes is the normal length of a debate on a statutory instrument on the Floor of the House. The proposals that the House will debate next week will not lift the ban on hunting with dogs. They respond to the representations of upland farmers. Members of this House—certainly those on our side—will have a free vote in responding to the legitimate concerns that have been raised.

I come to the hon. Lady’s comments on the Budget. Talk about hunting—the problem for the Labour party is that every single fox they had was shot yesterday in this Chamber. She said that the Chancellor had a woeful economic record. The only woeful economic record in this place in recent years was that of the last Labour Government. We have spent the past five years sorting out the mess that was left behind. Yesterday, we saw some of the fruits of our work: tax cuts to give people in work more money in their pockets; a national living wage that reflects the work done by the people of this nation; support for business; and encouragement for investment in skills and technology—exactly the kind of things that this country needs to deal with the productivity issues that we inherited from the last Labour Government.

What was not in the hon. Lady’s remarks this morning—and I am not surprised—was any reference to today’s strikes. In the capital and across the south-west of England and Wales, the trade unions are disrupting the working lives of ordinary people. Government Members condemn those strikes as being utterly unnecessary, inappropriate and the wrong way to address the concerns. Have we heard a single voice of concern from the Opposition? Not one word. Perhaps that is because, as we learned this week, the hon. Lady is the second choice of Len McCluskey for the deputy leadership of the Labour party.

Select Committees

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will wrap up the debate very briefly.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) talked about his political obituary. Nobody believes that for a moment. He will undoubtedly find just as many ways to contribute to the debate in this Parliament as he has found throughout the years that we have both served in this House.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman about the attitude of the Government to Select Committees. He will note from the Order Paper that we will have more Committees in this Parliament that we did in the last. We will continue to listen carefully to Parliament, as is right and proper.

I say to the Scottish nationalists that the Chief Whip and I have listened carefully to their comments. We will, no doubt, have further discussions on these issues. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) was in the House when I was first elected. I always remember him bringing a quality to the debate in this House and his return has undoubtedly brought back a quality to the debate in this, the Union Parliament. In doing so, he brings strength to the Union.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That with effect until the end of the current Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 be amended by the insertion of the following line at the appropriate point in the table in paragraph (2):

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

I can now announce the arrangements for the ballot for the election of Select Committee Chairs. The ballot will be held on Wednesday 17 June from 10 am until 5 pm in Committee Room 6. Nominations may be submitted in the Table Office from tomorrow at 9 am. Nominations will close at 5 pm on Wednesday 10 June.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 122D, I can also announce that the ballot and nomination timings for the election of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee will be the same as those I have just described.

A briefing note with more details about the elections will be made available to Members and published on the intranet.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 2.

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the return of the Bill to the House so that we can consider the amendments made in the Lords. I have listened carefully and with interest to the debates as the Bill has made progress and I must say that I have been amused by the position taken by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who have been vociferous in saying that the Bill is pointless and meaningless. When it arrived in the other place, however, they campaigned vigorously against the clause on responsibility. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if it is meaningless there is not much point in campaigning against it. The Bill is not at all meaningless. It has a purpose in protecting employers, particularly smaller employers, against the compensation culture and it will, I believe, make a significant difference. If it made no difference at all, why on earth did the Opposition try to strike out the clause? We know that the real reason the Opposition did not vote against the Bill is that they know that it addresses the genuine worries that ordinary people have about the growth of the compensation culture, which they talked about while in government and have conveniently forgotten about.

As hon. Members will recall, the Bill is designed to reassure hard-working individuals and organisations who have demonstrated a responsible approach to safety, who have been acting for the benefit of society or who have intervened in emergencies, that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account when determining whether they have been negligent. In spite of the negative comments about the Bill from the Opposition and in the other place, I am glad that the Bill returns to the House with only two modest changes.

Let me turn to the detail of the changes. Both were Government amendments tabled in response to concerns raised about specific aspects of the drafting and I ask the House to agree with them. Amendment 1 is to clause 3, on responsibility, and amendment 2 is to clause 4, on heroism.

On amendment 1, when clause 3 left this House it provided that the court should consider whether a person had demonstrated a “generally responsible” approach towards safety during the course of an activity in which an act of negligence was alleged to have occurred. The Opposition said that that would erode the rights of workers to sue their employers following injuries suffered in the workplace. On report, for example, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said that the clause was designed to

“allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 689.]

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Kennedy of Southwark added that

“the legislation could worsen the position of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2014; Vol. 756, c. 1570.]

Those assertions are entirely without foundation.

I want to make it clear that the Bill will not stop irresponsible employers from being found negligent when the circumstances of the case warrant it or stop the courts considering all relevant factors when reaching a decision on the claim. It is simply about ensuring that the courts take a common-sense approach to considering claims brought against hard-working owners of small businesses and others by considering their overall approach to safety in the course of the activity in which an accident occurred.

Although amendments proposed in the other place that would have undermined the main policy objectives of clause 3 were not carried, we agreed to one amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause—namely the replacement of the word “generally” with the word “predominantly”. We made that amendment following concerns that were raised about possible uncertainty over the meaning of the term “generally responsible” arising from the fact that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a range of definitions.

Lords amendment 1 helps to provide greater clarity. The word “predominantly” is a stronger and clearer term than the word “generally” and, on reflection, better achieves our policy aims. It makes it clearer that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it makes it clear that, if a hard-working individual such as the owner of a small business is doing his best to keep people safe and something goes wrong in spite of his best efforts, the courts will always consider whether his approach to safety during the activity in question was a predominantly responsible one.

That is the key point. That is why we introduced the Bill and why clause 3 will make a difference. It will provide greater protection to an employer who seeks to do the right thing and to look after his or her employees, and something goes wrong that could not have been foreseen. Of course, the Labour party, in hock as it is to the trade unions, immediately assumes the worst and immediately wants to do down the small business person. That is a sign of the way the Labour party has gone in the past few years. It has moved away from being sympathetic to the interests of small business and instead is back to the days of union domination and saying, “Let’s back the workers.” This is a responsible, balanced measure that ensures that those people who are genuinely wronged retain their legal redress, but that the law is on the side of the responsible employer who seeks to do the right thing.

Lords amendment 2 relates to clause 4, on heroism. As hon. Members will recall, the clause requires the court to consider whether a person was intervening heroically in an emergency when the negligence is alleged to have occurred. We know from polls carried out by St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation that worries about liability can deter people from intervening to help others in emergencies. That is something we should all be concerned about, and the clause is designed to give people greater reassurance that the law will be on their side in those circumstances.

We debated a proposed amendment that emanated from St John Ambulance. I listened carefully to the arguments set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). After we passed the measure, I did as I undertook to do and went away and thought carefully about the measure. I listened to debates in the Lords and decided there was no reason not to accept the St John Ambulance recommendation and the recommendation made by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend. I hope they accept that we made the amendment in the good spirit of trying to get the measure absolutely right.

When clause 4 left this House, the meaning of “heroism” included a requirement that the defendant must have been acting

“without regard to his or her own safety or other interests”.

My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend questioned whether the drafting of the clause might inadvertently exempt some very brave people who intervened in emergencies only after considering the risk to themselves and others. Initially, we thought it would be unlikely for the courts to interpret the clause in that way. However, in the light of the concerns raised on that point by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, and after discussions with those organisations and after considering the comments made in debates in the House and the other place, we decided that, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the simplest solution would be to omit from the clause the reference to acting

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

That means that it will be absolutely clear that the clause applies in any case where a person intervenes in an emergency to assist somebody in danger, irrespective of whether he or she acted entirely spontaneously or after carefully weighing up the risks. The amendment has been greeted warmly by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, which have said that they will use the opportunity that the Bill provides to encourage and reassure new first aid volunteers that the law is on their side.

That is what the Bill is all about. It is about saying to three groups of people seeking to do the right thing in our society that the law is on their side—people acting heroically, people acting in the interest of others, and people acting responsibly, particularly employers taking a responsible approach to health and safety matters in their own workplace. For many years in this country, we have faced a compensation culture. The Government have sought to make a number of changes to combat that compensation culture. We have made changes to the way in which legal fees are paid, and we have made changes to the way in which the rules apply. The Bill will add to a positive step forward. [Interruption.]

The fact that Opposition Front Benchers are sitting chuntering is, to my mind, a sign that they really do not care about tackling the compensation culture in this country. They do not care about the interests of small employers, and they do not care about people who are seeking to do the right thing. They are interested only in looking after the vested interests that provide them with their finance and backing. It is a sign of what divides this Government from the Opposition. It is a sign that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and people who seek to do the right thing. Opposite we have a party that simply represents vested interests and does not care about such things. That is why Labour Members have sought to challenge the Bill all the way through. The argument that the Bill was meaningless followed by the attempt to strike out parts of it completely undermined what they said and showed how bankrupt their current thinking is.

The two amendments make a helpful improvement to the Bill. I hope that the House supports them, and that the Bill can pass into law. I hope we send the clear message to those people that this Parliament is on their side.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 74 and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider: Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, and amendments (a) to (k) in lieu.

Government motion to insist on its disagreement with Lords amendments 103 to 106, and amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

[Chris Grayling]

We need to focus on two areas of the Government’s programme of reform: secure colleges and judicial review. This House has divided on both matters on several occasions, and backed the Government each time. I have listened carefully to all the arguments made in this and the other place, and I have introduced amendments, which I am confident will provide a practical approach in each area sufficient to reassure hon. Members.

On secure colleges, the provisions reflect our ambition to improve the education and reoffending outcomes for young people in custody. Secure colleges represent a step change in youth custodial provision, putting education and training at the forefront, and moving away from the traditional environment of iron bars on windows. Almost all of the provisions that related to the introduction of secure colleges have now been approved by both Houses of Parliament. There is one matter that remains for this House today, which is whether girls and under-15s should be detained in secure colleges.

Members will recall that, at the beginning of December, this House overturned an amendment made by the House of Lords to prevent the accommodation of boys aged under 15 and girls in secure colleges. I am disappointed that we are discussing that same amendment, but I have considered carefully the concerns raised. Since the last time the matter was debated in the House, my noble colleague Lord Foulkes has committed to publish and lay before Parliament a report before any of those two groups are introduced to the first secure college. The report will explain the arrangements to be made for girls and under-15s, including how those groups will be safeguarded. Despite that commitment, the House of Lords nevertheless insisted on its earlier amendment to exclude them from secure colleges.

I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we do not want to prevent in law girls and under-15s from in future being able to benefit from this pioneering approach and enhanced provision. We do not intend to put them in a secure college from day one and we do not intend to include them unless it is a project that is clearly demonstrating benefits. Therefore, I am entirely relaxed about the idea of Parliament considering this issue fully, because if it works, we will all support the idea of allowing those two groups to benefit from the change.

However, there is still some concern about the accommodation of those two groups, particularly alongside older boys. It is worth saying that girls and boys are accommodated alongside each other in secure training centres at the moment. I propose that we amend the Bill to make the commencement of the power to provide secure colleges for the detention of girls and under-15s subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That seems a simple solution. None of us will want to put them in the accommodation if the system is not working. If it is working, I cannot believe that any Government of whatever persuasion will want to deny those two groups access to what I believe will be a positive environment that will help them both to develop their skills and to fulfil the terms of a sentence of the court.

I hope that hon. Members welcome the significant steps that we are taking to address concerns while protecting the opportunity for girls and under-15s to benefit from the transformed provision secure colleges will deliver. Our measure will require the approval of this House but not the lengthy time frame that new primary legislation entails. I therefore ask the House to accept this amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 74.

Most of the Government’s proposals for judicial review reform have now been approved by both Houses of Parliament and two issues remain. Let me start with financial information. Our intent on this is entirely sensible. It is to ensure that there is less chance for those who fund and control a judicial review to escape their proper measure of costs liability, but the amendment is not about costs; it is purely about information. Let me stress to the House that this particular amendment, and the debate between us and the House of Lords, is about information and not costs. Concerns have been raised that requiring applicants to give the court information on how a judicial review is funded might discourage people from making a small contribution to help fund the litigation. That was never my intention. My intention is to avoid a situation in which people can shelter in anonymity, behind someone else, while funding all or most of a judicial review process.

We have explained before that we would take a “light touch” approach when specifying what information would be required. We now intend to address the concerns by ensuring that there will be a limit on the level of contributions that trigger the requirement to identify those who have provided funding. This amendment was introduced in the other place the last time it considered the Bill and was narrowly rejected, but I am confident that our approach is sound and will provide the protection we desire for smaller contributors, without allowing those with a larger interest who control litigation to avoid their due level of risk.

The debate in the other place was about how we could give comfort regarding the level at which the threshold will be set and how we will arrive at that number. I propose to set out the answer to that question today. I am content to say that the Government will commit to a consultation on where and how the threshold will be set. I am also content to inform the House that we will approach the consultation with a suggested figure of £1,500 in mind, and we are minded additionally to test a figure of 5% of the available funds.

Let me reiterate that the clause does not alter the courts’ existing powers to consider these types of situations and to make or to not make costs orders against third parties, if they consider it appropriate. Also, there is nothing in the clause that would cause an otherwise meritorious claim to be refused permission simply because the claimant was of modest financial means. The provision is about ensuring that a judge, in exercising their discretion on making a costs order, has all the information they could reasonably expect to have in front of them. I trust I have further reassured hon. Members that we will work to ensure that those who provide small amounts of funding do not need to be identified as providing financial support and are not likely to face costs liabilities.

The second judicial review topic—procedural defects—has prompted greater debate. I should start by apologising to the House for my confusion the last time we debated this issue in mixing up my highly likelies and my exceptional circumstances. Although I note that Opposition Members did not notice at the time, let us be clear this evening that I made that mistake and apologise to the House for it.

I think that our proposal on procedural defects is an equally common-sense reform as the one on financial information. We are trying to ensure that where a judicial review concerns a slight error—so slight that it is highly unlikely to have made a difference to the applicant and where the decision would have been the same regardless of that procedural defect—it will be deemed not to be a good use of court time for that judicial review to continue. It is not sensible to use tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money fighting judicial reviews when that money could be used to better effect in supporting our public services.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served in Committee, spoke on Report and took part in the debates on the Bill. It has benefited from the interesting and lively debate that we have had—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Lord Chancellor but will Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and swiftly and show due deference to him?

[Chris Grayling]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretaries of State for Justice, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). Their excellent work in Committee and on Report has guided the Bill to this stage. I also thank members of the Bill team and the Clerks for their advice and support.

This is an important Bill that toughens up sentences for serious and repeat offenders and strengthens the justice system. I have always been clear that those who break the rules should face the consequences and that protecting the public is our top priority. As a result of the action that the Government are taking, we are reducing crime, toughening up the justice system and giving victims the support they both need and deserve. We are making sure that hard-working families feel safe and secure in their local communities. This Bill is yet another step in delivering our promises and guaranteeing that security.

We are not a Government who legislate without taking into account the views of Parliament. We have listened carefully to the valuable discussion and debate in this House and the Bill has been improved as a result. Many colleagues in this House have rightly expressed concern that sentencing for those who cause death or serious injury by driving while disqualified has been inadequate. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. That is why we have added measures to the Bill to ensure that the courts have the power properly to penalise those who step back behind the wheel after being disqualified from driving and cause death or serious injury. It is right that they should face a longer sentence for doing so. It is clear from the discussion on Report and in previous debates that concerns remain about the penalties available for other serious driving offences. That is why we have committed to carrying out a wider review over the next few months, which we hope will address many of the points that have been raised.

We also had a very interesting debate in Committee and on Report on child grooming. In an age of constantly changing modes of communication, it is vital that our laws provide the utmost protection for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) suggested changes to the law on malicious communications. We agreed that that offence should be triable either way and subject to a higher penalty. In doing so we have also provided the police with more time to investigate those offences. That is a step forward in keeping children safe in the modern world and I commend my hon. Friend for her contribution to this Bill.

To be bipartisan, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) also suggested changes to the law on child grooming following her excellent work with Barnardo’s on child sexual exploitation. The Government have committed to considering whether changes to the law on meeting a child following child grooming are required and we are open to the arguments she has been making.

Let me turn to the provisions on secure colleges. I can only say that I am disappointed by the position taken by Opposition Members on the proposals. Youth reoffending rates are far too high and the system as it stands is not working well enough. Secure colleges represent an opportunity to change the way we detain and rehabilitate young offenders and prevent them from embarking on a life of crime. My vision is for young people to have access to high-quality education and training that will allow them to fulfil their potential. My vision is of detaining young people in an environment that is less like a prison and more like an educational institution with a fence around it, where we can ensure not only that they lose their liberty as per the orders of the court but that we maximise the time we have them with us to ensure that we equip them in the best possible way so that they do not reoffend afterwards. That is all the more important if a young person has set out on the wrong path in life. It is beyond me how the Opposition can criticise these once-in-a-generation reforms, which put education at the heart of youth custody, which seek to equip young people with the skills they need to turn their backs on crime and which give those who have broken the law the opportunity to make a fresh start in life.

There has been much debate about the detail of the secure college regime and the pathfinder college. Let me be clear that no final decisions have been made on who will be accommodated in the pathfinder. Those decisions will be taken as plans for the pathfinder are developed and in light of careful analysis of the needs of the youth custodial population and the impacts on different groups. Our plans for the rules that underpin the secure college provisions will be subject to public consultation. They will be published during the passage of the Bill to benefit from the wealth of expertise within the youth justice sector.

I hope that hon. Members from all sides recognise the genuine opportunity that such a new regime offers us to tackle youth reoffending and to help make a positive impact on the future for young offenders. Of course we are still developing some of the details, but the Bill lays down the foundations for a transformative approach to youth custody. I urge the Opposition to think again before they play politics with the future of young people who will genuinely benefit from both the education and the regime that the Bill is designed to provide, and to turn away from the siren voices that say that this is a new brutal regime. It is about a positive experience for young people in the hope that we can turn their lives around. Who can disagree with that?

Finally, I turn to judicial review. I fully recognise that judicial review is an important issue, which has been reflected by the debate and the interest that the House has shown. I remain firmly of the view that the Government are right to take action. Too often unmeritorious cases clog up the system, wasting time and taxpayers’ money. Judicial review is important. It should always remain available for well-founded challenges that raise issues of genuine significance. It also enables individuals to sort out a situation where they have faced, for example, maladministration from a public body, but I do not accept that the system should allow pressure groups to use judicial review as a PR stunt, or as a means of delaying properly made decisions—often decisions made in this House—while the taxpayer foots the bill.

The recent case concerning the remains of King Richard III illustrates exactly why we need reform. My decision to grant a licence to exhume Richard III’s human remains was challenged by the Plantagenet Alliance. It was a spurious and nonsensical claim brought as a stunt, and those bringing the claim hid behind a shell company to avoid facing the costs of doing so. They all claimed that they were members of the family of the Plantagenets. Well, I suspect that most of us in the Chamber are to some extent descendants of the family of the Plantagenets. It was not an issue in which there was any obvious family involvement. It was, as I say, a stunt. Because the company did not have any assets, an absolute protective costs order was sought and granted.

In the end the High Court upheld my decision as lawful, rational and fair, but we and our constituents were still left to pick up the tab for defending the challenge. At a time when difficult decisions are being taken across the public sector and when people are losing their jobs because of the need to rationalise to tackle our deficit, can Members honestly say that that was a good use of the judicial review process and of hard-working taxpayers’ money?

Applications for judicial review for cases that stand little prospect of success put undue pressure on the courts and on other essential public services and can unduly frustrate decisions that were properly made. The reforms in the Bill were developed following a full public consultation. They are aimed at improving, not scrapping, the judicial review process so that it is not open to abuse, and so that genuinely arguable cases can proceed quickly to final resolution.

In summary, the Bill is an important piece of legislation that has benefited from the scrutiny of this House and the additions that have been made as a result. In this legislation, the Government are ending automatic early release for dangerous criminals, child rapists and terrorists, we are restricting the use of cautions for serious offences, and we are toughening up sentences for prisoners who go on the run. We are taking the action that the public expect to help keep them safe and secure.

The Bill will also help us to modernise court processes and to work to break the cycle of youth reoffending. It is about rehabilitation as much as it is about tough action in our justice system. That is the mix we need in our justice system. People need to be properly punished when they offend, on behalf of the victims as well as on behalf of justice, but we also need to do everything we can to turn their lives around once they have offended so that they do not come back and commit crimes all over again. That is the philosophy of this Government. That is what underlies the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Debate between Lord Grayling and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is unlikely; the indications from the Court are that a level of reform of that kind would be sufficient to satisfy it that we had conformed to the judgment. That is one reason we have put that option in the Bill for consideration. A number of people have suggested more minor changes, but we do not believe that those would be sufficient to satisfy the Court. One can never say never about anything, but our expectation and belief is that that option would end this matter for the foreseeable future.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

What sanctions are available to the European Court of Human Rights to apply against the UK Government if they are judged not to have complied with the judgment sent down?