East Coast Main Line

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, Dr McCrea, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on making an excellent contribution to the debate.

I have only three minutes to speak, which does not give me much time to consider the privatisation or nationalisation of the east coast main line; I would need a lot of time to do that. Quite simply, I will focus on saying that the privatisation of the railways—some might even say the theft of the railway infrastructure—is totally unacceptable. It has been an unmitigated disaster, and franchise after franchise on the east coast main line has been a shining example of that.

I have looked at the results of the east coast main line. Since it has been in public ownership, it has been absolutely outstanding and there have been some things that private companies would be absolutely delighted with: increased passenger numbers, profits, premium payments and passenger satisfaction, and better turnover and punctuality. Also, passenger fare revenue has increased by 34% to £820 million. In 2012, turnover was £665.8 million, which was an increase of £20 million, leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department for Transport of £195.7 million, which was an increase of £13 million. Passenger journeys with East Coast, which runs trains from London to Yorkshire and from the north-east of England to Scotland, increased by 2.1% in 2012.

In addition, there is another important point, which I think has been agreed on by Members of all parties today. Customer satisfaction with East Coast has risen by 2%. Also, the company’s latest punctuality figures are the best since records began in 1999. What a credit to East Coast that is, and why on earth the Government are hoping to privatise the east coast main line quite frankly beggars belief. Again, it is about absolute ideology and absolute dogma, and who will benefit from this privatisation? It will not be the passengers and it will not be the work force; the financial bonanza will be distributed between shareholders.

I ask the Minister why on earth National Express—a company that threw the keys back at the Government because it could not cope with privatisation last time—will be allowed to bid for the east coast main line for a second time. If it could not cope the first time, why is it even being allowed to put itself forward a second time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

I am going to make progress, because I have only six minutes.

We have ensured that the delivery of the key inter-city franchises, both on the east coast and the west coast, is staggered so that they are not let at the same time in the economic cycle. The east coast is the first of those franchises to be let, and it is being returned to the private sector, as hon. Members know, after an extended and successful period of public ownership through force of necessity because of the fiasco with National Express. No one doubts that.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

No, I do not have time. I am not giving way.

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the new franchise programme, he set out three key principles that we want rail franchising to follow: first, that passengers gain; secondly, that the rail industry thrives, with growing companies and new competitors coming into the market; and thirdly, that the taxpayer gains through more efficient use of public money and less waste in the industry. We believe that letting the east coast main line back to the private sector in line with those three principles will deliver the best possible long-term outcome for passengers and taxpayers.

I am aware of a number of concerns raised by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), on services to Scotland. Mindful of that, officials from the DFT who are developing the proposition for the future inter-city east coast franchise are meeting a number of interested parties along the route, including Transport Scotland, as I am sure he would expect, and other transport bodies in Scotland, as well as local authorities, to understand their concerns. The specification for the new franchise will address both current and potential markets along the franchise route, including those between London and Scotland and up to Aberdeen.

East Coast has delivered a great deal in the past three-and-a-half years of public ownership, which provides the foundations for more to be done by a private sector company that has certainty of ownership, longer planning horizons and an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to doing more for passengers and taxpayers. The operation of the east coast by the public sector was never intended to be a permanent arrangement.

Lord Adonis himself, when he was Secretary of State, said that he did not believe it was in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely, and I believe he still believes that. I would be fascinated if the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) intervened to tell me exactly what he said when he told her that he had changed his mind, because I have great difficulty believing that someone as intellectually astute and consistent as the noble Lord Adonis has changed his mind now.

The announcement that we will return the franchise to the private sector in February 2015 provides the certainty that is needed so that longer-term plans for the business can be made. We now need a strong private sector partner.

Railways

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

This is an important package of proposals and we must consider their consequences carefully. As the Minister acknowledged when he appeared before the Transport Committee and today, the Government are still considering their position on several matters of detail.

A number of issues need to be looked at in the context of the UK rail industry. Given the recent success of the east coast main line and the collapse of the franchising system, we do not believe that it is necessary to move towards compulsory tendering of all passenger contracts. Within the wider package there are several proposals that we can support in principle, but reassurances are needed on a number of points.

We broadly welcome moves towards standardisation which have the potential to deliver savings to UK companies. Part of that process is the move towards uniform European safety standards, and we need to look closely at how those changes would impact on the UK. We need to look at how the proposals would affect our cross-border links with France. The channel tunnel has not yet fulfilled its potential in either passenger or freight traffic, and the proposals in the package for greater co-operation between infrastructure managers, combined with a single certification authority, may improve services between Britain and the continent. It is therefore right to pursue standardisation which could reduce costs, and it is also important that where countries have chosen to put contracts out to tender, British companies should be able to compete on a level playing field.

Previous packages have done much to remove the cross-border restrictions which hold rail back compared with other modes of transport, although as the Select Committee noted this week, some outstanding issues remain. There is still much to be done and the possibility of single certificates across the EU will be a boon to purchasers and manufacturers, who currently have to obtain approval from individual national regulators. However, there are also concerns, and we must make sure that any final agreement is in the national as well as the European interest.

Crucially, the UK’s recent exemplary safety record must not be put at risk in a rush to achieve uniformity. Since Labour ended the failed Railtrack experiment and tackled the decades of under-investment in our infrastructure, the UK has established one of the best safety records in Europe. Much of the credit must go to the work of the Office of Rail Regulation, which since 2004 has helped to deliver a significant improvement in safety standards. Fatalities on the railways are now at an historic low, but under the fourth railway package the ORR’s safety and certification responsibilities will be transferred to the European Railway Agency. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that safety standards in the UK will not be weakened if the ORR’s responsibilities are transferred to the ERA? What discussions has he held with the Commission on this point? Will he give the House a full report on them today?

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it not fair to say that the British railways system is one of the safest in the world? We are on the right track with health and safety. If the package goes ahead, that could be in doubt.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Since Network Rail took over, overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, safety has improved enormously. That is precisely why I am asking the Government to give us the assurances that we seek.

As the Transport Committee noted, there is a

“lack of clarity about how they”—

the new standards—

“would work in practice.”

Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be a clear and simple division of responsibilities between the ORR and the ERA? What assessment has he made of whether there will have to be an increase in bureaucracy in order to enforce common standards across very different networks? The UK is currently leading Europe on safety, and our high standards must not be levelled down in order to reach a quick agreement.

There is also a difficult balance to strike on competition. Of course, where countries have decided to put routes out to tender, British companies should be able to bid without fear or favour, but the fourth railway package would force competitive tendering on all passenger services. This has already provoked opposition in Europe, and we believe that there are good reasons for opposing it in the UK too. If approved, it could deny the UK the right to maintain a public sector comparator or intervene in cases of market failure, as happened on the east coast. Since 2009, the award-winning not-for-dividend operator has returned £640 million to the taxpayer, so it is worrying to see the Commission base its proposals explicitly on the UK experience.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think that my hon. Friend lives close to the Little Eaton island and I live close to the Markeaton island, so we both know of the regular delays on that very important road. On the pinchpoint funds, I am pleased that we will see some improvements this month—as she will know, work has already started on preparing the site for those improvements. I have met the leader of Derby city council, and I know that my hon. Friend has met the Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). We are looking at this issue, but it is a very big scheme.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, Lord Adonis published a report on the north-east local enterprise partnerships suggesting that political consideration should be given to the extension of the Tyne and Wear metro into south-east Northumberland. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and interested parties to discuss that possibility and other possibilities for railway links from south-east Northumberland into the cities of the north-east?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is calling Lord Adonis in support; other people were attacking what he did when he was Secretary of State. I am aware of the report and was in the north-east a few months ago. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss some of the important points within that report.

Rising Cost of Transport

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, which is extremely timely, given the news in today’s newspapers that once again the north-east is to lose out on vital rail infrastructure investment. I want to draw some important links between fares paid, the turnover of rail operating companies, the profits they make and levels of investment.

This morning, The Journal in Newcastle announced that Network Rail’s £37 billion five-year improvement programme looked set to snub a wish list of north-east track upgrades. The Secretary of State just trumpeted that 850 miles of line were to be electrified—well, not in the north-east of England, I am afraid. He also mentioned that £240 million was to be invested in the east coast main line. On the basis of current profits and the amount of money going back to the Department for Transport from the east coast main line, that is about one and a quarter years’ operating profit—so not much to be thankful for there. Rail passenger groups have warned that, although some east coast main line work will speed up connections, almost none of Network Rail’s refurbishment money will go to north-east England. Incidentally, the east coast main line is operated by Directly Operated Railways, which is owned, in turn, by the Secretary of State and the Department, so he has significant influence over the company—or certainly should have.

Lines in the region calling out for electrification, new passenger services or full-scale reopening have had their case turned down, as money has gone instead to improving services via Manchester and Leeds, as well as improving links to London. Of the £37.5 billion budget, only a pittance is earmarked for track enhancements in the north-east—mainly for the easing of the so-called pinch points between Northallerton and Ferryhill. From a north-east perspective, projects would help to boost mobility and connectivity in our region and enhance our prospects for economic growth.

This snubbing, yet again, of the north-east is particularly galling given the range of fare deals being offered to north-east customers, compared with our Scottish counterparts, by the east coast main line. We sometimes have to pay £100 more for a journey that is an hour and a half and a 100 miles less. I have no quarrel with my Scottish colleagues and their constituents getting good deals from east coast main line, but on behalf of my constituents, I have a duty to demand the same kind of deals and discounts for the travelling public in the north-east as those from which colleagues north of the border benefit.

The east coast main line is working at a significant profit and contributing those profits to the national pot.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I had a look at the fares on the internet just before we came into the Chamber. A return fare from Newcastle to King’s Cross was £301. With the minimum wage at £6.19, that means that people have to pay 48.62 hours of work at the minimum wage for one journey from Newcastle to London return. Is that fair?

[Ian Mearns]

There is an awful lot about current fare structures that is desperately unfair, particularly for people on low wages and those trying to get jobs, and particularly in a region such as the north-east, where many have to travel to get work.

As the independent report stated in September, a railway company that was temporarily renationalised by the Government three years ago reported increased profits and an improvement in passenger satisfaction. DOR, which took over the running of the east coast line from National Express, said that its operating profit increased by 7% in the year to March to £7.1 million. Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8 million—an increase of £20 million—leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department of £195.7 million. That was an increase of £13 million. Putting that against the £240 million proposed investment in the east coast main line makes the amount look extremely modest indeed.

I have a great deal of respect for east coast main line as a franchise. I sympathise with its staff, who often work in difficult circumstances, dealing with the failures of creaking infrastructure and worn out rolling stock and equipment, yet an awful lot of what the travelling public have to put up with on the east coast main line could be avoided through some relatively modest investment, which would be entirely affordable given its profits.

West Coast Rail Franchise

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am waiting to receive the Brown report, which will, I hope, take us further on lessons to be learned for future franchising. I will be most insistent on passengers receiving the services that they are currently getting, and, where possible, an enhanced service.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Has the Transport Secretary assessed the potential for running the west coast main line under public ownership and what the benefits might be?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I believe that the way in which the west coast main line is run by Virgin has been very popular with Members, not on the Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches, who have announced their intention to support that franchise.

Rail Investment

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I am absolutely sure that it will. We are developing a fantastic midland main line for what is a fantastic city.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

We have got the lines, we have got some stations; the only problem on the Ashington-Blyth-Tyne line is that we have not got any trains. Can the Transport Secretary explain how much of the £9 billion investment will go towards reopening the Ashington-Blyth-Tyne line?

[Justine Greening]

We are looking at whether there is any possibility of opening lines. Our main focus has been on whether we can improve stations, and in fact open new ones, but over time we may be able to unlock some of those local decisions through the Department’s decentralisation approach. We have just consulted on that, some very interesting responses have come through and I hope that we will make some announcements later. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point with real interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

Yes, we agree that it is a good idea that local communities have more say in such matters, as my hon. Friend says. I am happy to say that my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will shortly invite him, other local MPs and interested parties to discuss relative priorities for the A47.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Northumberland county council is again considering the reopening of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne rail passenger link, which is essential for economic recovery and growth in south-east Northumberland. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other interested parties to discuss how we make sure that this necessity becomes a reality?

[Norman Baker]

We have the biggest rail investment programme since Victorian times, but we are always looking for schemes that are sensible and help local economies. I or the Minister of State will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

McNulty Report and West Coast Rail

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have to put it to him slightly differently: the savings will be returned to people in the form of lower taxpayer subsidy—which we have to deliver, because my Department, like every other Department, has to make its contribution to dealing with the fiscal mess that we inherited—and in due course, if they are successful, there will be lower pressure for upward real increases in fares. I would like to see a return to a world in which fares rise broadly in line with inflation, and a move away from the era of inflation-busting fare increase that we have faced over the last few years and, unfortunately, will have to face over the next three years.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The McNulty report did not seriously consider the possibility of the reintegration of the rail system into public ownership. I mention that because many systems abroad are largely in public ownership. One of the reasons why our system is at least 30% more expensive is the billions of pounds siphoned off in profits and dividends. Will the Secretary of State explain why they did not look at that option and why it is not on the table at the moment?

East Coast Main Line Call Centre

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is timely that on the day Sir Roy McNulty’s report on why Britain’s railways cost more than other European railways is published, and on the day he recommends yet further fragmentation of our rail network and fails to consider seriously the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership or why billions of pounds are drained from the industry in profits to the train operating companies, we have this opportunity to consider East Coast’s decision to threaten the future of 180 jobs on Tyneside by transferring an important customer service part of its operation to Mumbai in India.

As Members will be aware, the east coast main line service is wholly owned by Directly Operated Railways Ltd, trading under the name East Coast. DOR Ltd is, in turn, wholly owned by Her Majesty’s Government in the guise of the Secretary of State for Transport. I know the Minister will argue that it is not appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in operational matters of this type that are properly for East Coast to address, but I am a little incredulous about that.

The Minister will probably argue that as the east coast main line service is owned by DOR Ltd and not the Government, the Government have no right to intervene. However, I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s statement today, during which he said: “The Government want Britain’s railways to continue to prosper and have demonstrated by their actions their commitment to them. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, we have allocated funding to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, and to support the upgrade of the London underground. We have announced electrification on the great western main line and in north-west England. We have resumed the intercity express programme to improve reliability, comfort and journey times on the east coast and Great Western main lines.” The Secretary of State therefore plainly takes credit for investment in the railways that, we hope, will improve the service, but he will probably in due course deny any responsibility for, influence over, or right to interfere in the affairs of, East Coast and its decision to close a call centre in Tyneside. The use of the term “we” in the statement followed by a list of all the actions taken proves that the Government can intervene. That leads me to raise the issue of Ministers taking the practice of using smoke and mirrors to evade responsibility to new heights.

The purpose of this debate is absolutely clear. I want to ensure that the Secretary for State cannot evade responsibility on this issue. I want to defend 180 local jobs in Tyneside, where unemployment is already well above national averages. I want to highlight the ridiculous scenario whereby a state-owned company—supported by millions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy—is pursuing a policy of exporting jobs to exploit cheaper labour market conditions abroad and throwing local people on to the dole in an unemployment black spot. I want to highlight the false economy savings for both the railway and the United Kingdom Exchequer. I want to highlight that this is simply the latest train franchise cut, in order to make it more attractive to potential bidders when it is put up for re-privatisation. Finally, I want to highlight the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s report and the east coast main line’s place in the chaotic structure of the public and privatised railways.

East Coast intends, via a re-tendering process, to move the work currently undertaken at the customer contact centre in Baron house in Newcastle upon Tyne away from the north-east to Mumbai in India, Plymouth and Wolverhampton—but mostly to Mumbai in India. The following jobs are currently performed at Baron house: customer contact centre and associated services; inquiry and booking services for telesales, group travel, assisted travel and business travel; ticket fulfilment; web support; and customer relations activities. This action will culminate in the loss of 180 jobs on Tyneside, which will be a bitter blow for the people in a region that is already reeling from the impact of this Government’s economic policy, where between 28% and 32% of the work force depend on the public sector for employment, and which is already braced for the disproportionate impact of the Government cuts, especially in local authority expenditure. The work will now be undertaken outside the north-east of England and a high proportion of it will be undertaken outside the UK, in Mumbai.

The following operations will now take place in the following locations: group and assisted travel and ticket fulfilment will go to Plymouth; public telesales will go to Mumbai; web support and ticket fulfilment will go to Wolverhampton; business travel services will cease as a telephone service and will be online only, supported in Wolverhampton; East Coast customer relations will go to Intelenet in Plymouth; delay repay, processing only, will go to Intelenet in Mumbai; and lost property will go to Plymouth.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister suggesting, before the election, that the north-east would be hit hardest and first? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just another case—a shining example—of an attack on decent hard-working people in the north-east and that that should not be tolerated any more?

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Members from the north-east of England have mentioned on numerous occasions how the cuts imposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government in particular have disproportionately hit the north-east of England. Councils in our region have lost four times the measure of public finance from the central Government grant than those in the south-east outside London. The impact is disproportionate on an area that is already struggling in this economic climate.

Staff have been advised that they will lose the benefits that would normally accrue to people working in the rail industry and that their rail travel facilities will be retained only until 31 December. The transfer of work is being phased and will begin on American Independence day, 4 July, with the last shift work to be done on 23 July. Over those three weeks, the work will gradually be moved from Baron house in Newcastle.

Surely it is totally unacceptable for a state-owned company such as East Coast, supported by taxpayers’ money, to export jobs abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course I am well aware of the performance issues on the east coast route at the moment. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the improving performance of the train operator. The bulk of the problems that are currently being experienced are the result of problems with the infrastructure, over which East Coast has no control. I hope that in future, with the McNulty-style reforms, we will see shared incentives and improved performance from Network Rail. It is a mistake for the hon. Gentleman to blame those running the East Coast operation for the current performance problems. They bear a share of the responsibility, but the bulk of it, I am afraid, is Network Rail’s.

Turning to the facts of the case, National Express Services Ltd, or NXSL, was providing call centre services to National Express East Coast—NXEC—before its franchise terminated in 2009. NXSL is a separate commercial entity from NXEC and therefore was not taken over by Directly Operated Railways—DOR—at the handover. To ensure business continuity, contact centre services continued to be provided from Baron house to East Coast Ltd on a temporary basis, but two major problems stood in the way of this arrangement continuing on a longer term basis: first, the cost base of the Newcastle call centre; and secondly, the fact that telesales volumes have been falling rapidly across the rail network as customers switch to internet buying.

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Mrs Villiers]

I am going to continue for a moment.

In 2006, 11% of East Coast ticket sales were made over the telephone—today, that figure has fallen to just 1.9%—and 50% of East Coast advance ticket sales are now made via the internet.

Following the failure of the NXEC franchise, the services provided by the customer contact centre were reviewed by East Coast and by National Express. That review concluded that it was not commercially viable for the call centre to continue to provide telesales services to the new east coast operator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No, I have been very generous.

Greater flexibility was sought to enable a better response to sudden peaks in demand for call centre services—for example, as occurred over the winter. A priority for East Coast Ltd was to ensure a stable future for its contact centre services. Due diligence was conducted to establish if it was feasible for DOR to purchase NXSL and the contact centre and operate it as a subsidiary. However, this proposition was not viable because of the significant liabilities associated with the call centre. A working capital injection of approximately £2 million would have been required, plus further investment to turn around a loss-making business.

East Coast worked with National Express to see whether the Newcastle operation could be sold to a third-party expert in call centre services. Bids were received, but they faced the same purchase problems identified by East Coast and fell through when it proved impossible to agree a price. East Coast also considered whether some of the services could be provided in-house, but it is not a telephone contact centre specialist, and it concluded that it did not have the capacity or expertise to provide in-house services to the high standards that its customers wanted and that it was possible to get from a third-party supplier.

Having exhausted all possible options, East Coast concluded that the only viable way forward was to seek a new specialist supplier to provide call centre services. In parallel with National Express’s efforts to secure a third-party purchaser, East Coast initiated an Official Journal of the European Union procurement process to invite bidders to provide contact centre services. The legal requirements of that process meant that East Coast was not permitted to specify the location from which these services were to be provided. The Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 prevent this unless a particular location is essential for the provision of the service. As the hon. Gentleman said, the outcome of the process was a contract with Intelenet UK for public telesales, group and assisted travel, ticket fulfilment and customer relations, and a further contract with Atos Origin for web support and web ticket fulfilment.

I appreciate that this process has a downside and is a real blow for those working at the National Express call centre, but there is an upside for passengers. I am advised that East Coast believes that the new contract—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I said when I made my statement on Tuesday that a further announcement would shortly be made about rail investment. That announcement will include the provision of additional rail cars to relieve overcrowding. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait for a few more days until that statement is made.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On the rail network and fare increases, is the Minister aware that the proposed formula increase outlined in the CSR—that is, RPI plus three—will mean a cumulative increase of approximately 33.5% by 2015? That means, on the Newcastle to London line, an increase up to £500 for first class and £350 for second class—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members, both Back Benchers and Front Benchers, because I think they have forgotten, that topical questions and answers are supposed to be shorter? I think the Minister has got the thrust of the question, although the hon. Gentleman is certainly not the only offender, by any means.