Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree. It is very good indeed that something close to a cross-party consensus has emerged over the last few years in favour of dealing with generations of discrimination—and it is discrimination—against mental health in the NHS and, within that, an almost institutionalised form of cruelty through which very vulnerable children and adolescents with serious mental health conditions have not been treated and cared for. This cannot be reversed and corrected overnight, but we can make a start. We have done that, and last week’s announcement in the Budget of a £1.25 billion investment in children and young adult mental health services will have a transformative effect on the tens of thousands of children who will now be better treated than they have been for a long time.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents, I am happy to say, voted for AV in the recent referendum, but they were not among the majority. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that with a five-party system at the UK level—and even more throughout the nations and regions of the UK—we need to look again at the electoral system and that this should be a priority for a constitutional convention hopefully set up under a Labour Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

One should not expect to ask a Liberal Democrat about electoral reform and fail to get a hearty answer—well, perhaps not a hearty answer, but the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. The electoral system we have is woefully unrepresentative of the way people vote. As he rightly suggests, it is becoming ever more unrepresentative as the old duopoly of politics gives way to something much more fluid and plural. Our electoral system—and, indeed, the way in which we conduct our business here—is stuck firmly in the past. It is anachronistic; it will have to change; in my view, it will change one day.

Food Banks

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I shall just finish responding to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), then I will give way. I had not realised that I was quite so popular. The hon. Gentleman claims that the delays are being tackled, but the DWP’s target is to determine a claim in 16 days. If someone has no money and they have to wait 16 days for their benefit claim to be determined, and then wait for the cheque to arrive, they are going to have to go to a food bank. I do not think that those targets, whether they are being met or not, are anywhere near good enough, and nor did the report, “Feeding Britain”, which suggested that claims ought to be cleared within five days.

Why are DWP Ministers not doing something about this? They appear indifferent. The Minister for Employment has said that

“there is no robust evidence linking food bank usage to welfare reform.”

That is because she refuses to collect such evidence. Either the Ministers are indifferent and incompetent, or they are indifferent and venal. In reality, they do not care enough about the problems to take any action.

[Maria Eagle]

We ought to take note of the experience of other jurisdictions where food banks have become part of the social security system. Professor Liz Dowler of the university of Warwick carried out a piece of research—long-delayed, I might add—for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. When she commented on it on the “Today” programme, she dismissed the idea of using surplus food as a solution to hunger, saying:

“There is no evidence from any country that has systemised using food waste to feed hungry people that it is effective. It is better to reduce”

that waste. I am concerned that what has happened in Germany and Canada could happen here—that is, that we could institutionalise dependence on food banks. Policy makers on either side of the House should be very careful before embarking on a policy that institutionalised food bank use in this country.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not clear that this is not just about delay and error, and that what is happening is partly a direct result of a deliberate policy? Benefit sanctions in particular have been a major cause of people going without food, sometimes for lengthy periods. That is not accidental; it is deliberate and it needs to change.

[Maria Eagle]

I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend. There is a deliberate attempt by DWP Ministers in this Government to sanction and stigmatise people who are on benefit.

The cost of living crisis means that people are more than £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. Living standards will be lower at the end of this Parliament than they were at its beginning. Prices have risen faster than wages for 52 of the 54 months that our Prime Minister has been in office. There are more working families living in poverty in the UK today than families with nobody in work—for the first time since records began. The cost of some food essentials has gone up in the past six years by as much as 20%. Families on the lowest incomes spent almost a quarter more on food last year than they did six years ago—they were already the families who spent the largest share of their income on food. People are now buying fewer, cheaper calories; they have been forced to trade down to less healthy, less nutritious, more processed foods.

It is not just food that has been going up in price: since 2010, people have been paying £300 more on average for energy to heat their homes and keep their lights on; water bills have gone up, with one in five people struggling to pay them; the cost of housing keeps rising, with renters now paying on average over £1,000 a year more than in 2010; and for those with children, the rising price of child care is making it harder and harder to take on work.

Yet during this time the Government have done nothing to address the cost of living crisis—and they plan much worse. Robert Chote, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, said plans in the autumn statement now take

“total public spending to its lowest share of GDP in 80 years.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the Government’s plans would take

“total government spending to its lowest level as a proportion of national income since before the last war”.

This Tory plan to recreate 1930s Britain, along with its hunger, low pay and non-existent rights at work, coincides with changes to the labour market making it tougher to make ends meet, even for someone who is in work. The “Feeding Britain” report says that 25% of food bank users are in work and the Trussell Trust says that 22% are: increasingly, being in work is no longer a guarantee against going hungry in Britain today. David McAuley, the Trussell Trust chief executive, said that

“we’re…seeing a marked rise in numbers of people coming to us with ‘low income’ as the primary cause of their crisis. Incomes for the poorest have not been increasing in line with inflation and many, whether in low paid work or on welfare, are not yet seeing the benefits of economic recovery.”

He is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I agree. It was a delight to be at the Devonport dockyard to sign the Plymouth city deal in the company of my hon. Friend. Of course, the south-west relies on good transport connections. He will know that the south-west growth deal included a lot of investment in roads. He was kind enough to come to Exeter for the signing of that deal. I encourage him to work with his local enterprise partnership to put forward the best new projects for what I hope will be the next round of growth deals.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will not be surprised to know that I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) about Edinburgh being an ideal location for the next round of city deals, particularly for one focused on the regeneration of Leith docks, which happens to be in my constituency.

[Greg Clark]

I am delighted that representations are coming from all parts of the House for building on the success of our city deals programme.

G7

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the extremism taskforce, which I set up, is all about. We have a problem not with Islam, which is a religion of peace and one of the great world religions, but with a minority of Islamist extremists, who have a completely unacceptable world view. We need to deal with that on our campuses and in our colleges, our prisons, our schools and elsewhere. The extremism taskforce brings together the whole Government to ensure that we sweep away these problems in all those areas of our life.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

What discussions were there at the G7 on the post-2015 development framework? Will the UK Government give a commitment that they will ensure that tackling extreme economic inequality will be one of the commitments in that framework?

[The Prime Minister]

There was a discussion about development. We agreed that the G7 next year in Germany should have a particular focus on what will replace the millennium development goals. The work that Britain did on those has been greatly welcomed. The hon. Gentleman used the words “extreme…inequality”. I think it is important that at the heart of the goals we have a vision of eradicating extreme poverty. That has to come before issues of inequality. Inequality is an important consideration, but we should not take our eyes off the prize, which is abolishing the idea that people should be living on less than a few dollars a day in our world. That should be the key focus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for holding these job fairs. A number of Members of Parliament have taken that approach and have seen real benefits in their local areas as businesses come forward to pledge apprenticeships and to take people on, and are brought together with people who are looking for work. Since the recess, we have seen a series of figures on our economy: growth is now running at over 3%, 1.5 million of our fellow countrymen and women are in work since this Government came to power, inflation is at a five-year low and business confidence is at its highest level since the early 1970s. There is still a lot of work to do and there is absolutely no complacency. The long-term economic plan is not complete, but it is well on its way.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q5. Before he was elected, the Prime Minister said that “if they’d let me” he would put a wind turbine on No. 10 Downing street, making use of the cheapest and most developed form of renewable energy. Last week, he announced that his party wants to end support for onshore wind even though the Government’s own survey this week showed that 70% of the public now support it. What changed his mind?

[The Prime Minister]

What is changed is that we have seen a massive increase in onshore wind generation in our country. We will achieve, through what is in the planning system and under construction, the provision of approaching 10% of our electricity demand through onshore wind. The question is then whether it is right to continue to overrule local planners and local people and whether it continues to be right to put taxpayers’ money in after we have built out that onshore wind provision. I do not believe that it is, and the Conservative manifesto will make that very clear for local communities. Other parties will have to make their own choices.

European Council

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I support a good relationship between Britain and Russia and have taken steps as Prime Minister to try to put that in place. We have huge issues and difficulties between us still, not least the Litvinenko measures that remain in place, and clearly this is going to be a major impediment to a strong relationship between Britain and Russia, unless Russia takes the diplomatic path. We should hope that it does and work towards encouraging it to do so. If that happens, I see no reason why important economic relations, as we have discussed, could not continue.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not important to emphasise time and again that to divide Ukraine simplistically into Russian-speakers and Ukrainian-speakers is not a representation of the true situation? There are communities, families and individuals who are both Ukrainian and Russian-speaking. It is important to recognise the rights of minorities across Ukraine and to recognise the rights of different regions, but is not that intermingling of culture and languages a reason why there needs to be a commitment to a united and independent Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I echo every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. It is important to recognise how many Russian speakers in Ukraine have said that they support a strong and independent Ukraine and do not welcome Russian intervention. As I have said, we should not fall into the trap of believing a lot of the Russian propaganda—a lot of what we have heard has turned out to be just that.

Deregulation Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. It is obviously right for Governments periodically to review regulation, not just once a Parliament, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) said, but on a continuing basis. Having served for a number of years on the Regulatory Reform Committee during the Labour Government’s period in office, I know that we did a lot to try to simplify regulations in many ways.

Certainly, there is no objection in principle to the idea of a Bill that, every now and then, seeks to remove the regulatory burdens that can build up. One of the criticisms of this Bill is that many of the proposed measures are so minimal in their impact that one wonders why they could not have been brought forward years ago. I find it hard to believe that it has taken the great minds of the Department almost four years under a Conservative Government to work on the measure relating to the sale of yarn and other similar, relatively minor measures. One would think that this Government, who are so stated in their commitment to abolishing unnecessary regulation, could have done that at an earlier stage, even though such measures are welcome.

Some measures are to be welcomed. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) has mentioned the measure relating to rights of way. They do not apply to my constituents—it is a devolved issue—but from what he has said it sounds like a sensible measure that should be enacted, as I am sure it will be.

The Bill also proposes to repeal those sections of the Digital Economy Act 2010 that allow courts the power to order internet service providers to block access to websites that infringe copyright. I understand that those sections have never been used. Many Members made very strong arguments against them at the time, because they felt they were unnecessary, but we were told they were important. I confess that I was one of the Back Benchers who rebelled against the measures and did not support them, and now, four years later, we find out that they were not necessary in the first place. Clearly, it is right to repeal them and perhaps that highlights the need closely and thoroughly to scrutinise Bills.

That highlights one of the problems with the way in which the Government have described this Bill, because those measures have never been used and are, therefore, not a burden on business. Business is not having to spend lots of money to address the measures, because they have never been applied to anyone. That is also true of other measures in the Bill. I accept, however, that the possibility of a measure being taken against a business might jeopardise its activities, so it is a good thing to address that.

Questions have to be asked about other measures and I hope the Minister will address them either when he replies to the debate or at a later stage. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raise the issue—I had not appreciated this fully—of the proposals relating to international marine agreements. I have served on the Environmental Audit Committee for some time and we have had a few major discussions about the international marine and maritime agreements, some of which are very important. As my hon. Friend said, both the trade unions and the shipping industry have concerns about the effect some of the measures will have on shipping interests, so it is important that we scrutinise them properly. I may have misunderstood the full import of those provisions; if so, but I have no doubt that the Minister will clarify them.

[Mr Letwin]

In the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), which made me look again at clause 59 to see whether my memory was in any way mistaken, I think it would be helpful to give some clarification. Neither the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) nor the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is correctly informed: the Bill does not in any way diminish the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the measures. It enables the Minister to make ambulatory references to international law through a statutory instrument. It would then be perfectly open to Parliament to debate that statutory instrument and come to the view that it should be drafted otherwise.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful clarification.

Another question arises from a letter sent by the Law Society of Scotland to every Scottish MP. Perhaps the Minister will address its two particular concerns either now or in Committee. First, on clauses 10 to 12, it is

“concerned about partial authorisation of insolvency practitioners.”

It points out that, in Scotland,

“significant parts of the corporate insolvency”

regime

“are linked to bankruptcy legislation”,

and its view is that the proposed regime of

“partial authorisation as an insolvency practitioner will not be effective in Scotland because of the linkage between company insolvency and bankruptcy law.”

I have no doubt that that point can be pursued in future.

Secondly, the Law Society of Scotland is concerned about clause 44 on the repeal of the duty of the senior president of tribunals to report on the standards of decision making. This is another measure where it is hard to see how it can be a major burden on business. The only burden is the duty on the senior president to make a report, which a Minister can then presumably choose to act on.

I note with some concern, given my own involvement in it, the provisions that would repeal certain sections of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, which, the Minister may recall, I promoted as a private Member’s Bill. Indeed, he and I co-operated on many aspects of it. Perhaps I should at this point declare an interest as an unpaid board member of the Edinburgh community energy co-operative. The Act has a number of measures to promote sustainable and renewable energy and action on and awareness of climate change. I fully accept that many of the Act’s measures have been taken on board elsewhere since it was enacted, including by the Climate Change Act 2008. However, not all of the 2006 Act’s provisions have been taken on board elsewhere, so I would be concerned to see them removed to the extent proposed by the Bill.

My final comments relate to the implications of the duty in clauses 61 to 64 to take account of the

“desirability of promoting economic growth.”

As Opposition Members have said, we support the general desirability of promoting economic growth. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, regulators are already expected to take such concerns into account. They do not usually produce regulations without any wider consultation or discussions. They have processes whereby they seek comments from business, among others, and we can be pretty certain that, when business feels that a regulation is damaging economic growth, it will say so. I find it hard to understand how this proposal will have anything other than damaging consequences.

[Mr Letwin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a characteristically thoughtful contribution. It seems to me that his structural argument—and, indeed, that of other Opposition Members, including the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, who have made serious contributions on the subject of clause 61—ignores the fact that, at the moment, regulators do not have that duty, and the result is that they would be failing in their duties if they were to pay specific attention to economic growth, even in the way the clause requires, which is as a balance to their other duties. For example, the Environment Agency, which always has to attend to environmental considerations, is positively not allowed to pay attention to growth duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister makes a constructive point and perhaps it can be pursued and tightened up in Committee. My concern is that the real purpose of the clause is to say that economic objectives should trump other objectives and that they should take precedence over sustainable development objectives and, as my hon. Friend the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee has said, health and safety objectives and, indeed, equality objectives. The proposal is also of concern to other Members and is at variance with our cross-party commitments to prioritise sustainable development and recognise the requirement of public bodies—this had cross-party agreement just a few months ago—to have an equality duty.

[Joan Walley]

Will my hon. Friend tempt the Minister to respond to him again to put the whole issue of sustainable development on the record? If there was a duty for sustainable development, that would balance the economic, the social and the environmental, and there would be no need for the new duty for economic growth.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and if the Minister wishes to intervene to clarify the issue, I am happy to let him do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I help a little? If we are to have interventions, could they be a little shorter, because some of them are almost turning into speeches?

[Mr Letwin]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept this is a slightly odd way to conduct a debate, but it seems to me to be productive, so bear with us.

There could of course be a general duty to have regard to sustainable development instead of all the duties on all the regulators—we could say that we do not need any other duties—but all the other regulators have lots of other duties, and by introducing economic growth not as an override but as a balancing consideration, that precisely induces them to consider the totality, namely sustainable development.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his commitment to a balancing duty, with all duties being taken into account in decision making. I am not sure whether the Bill will have such an effect if it becomes law, but that point can no doubt be pursued through amendments in Committee and on Report, if necessary.

It is important not to forget or lose sight of the fact that although it is important to take into account the economic growth imperative, the other concerns that I and my colleagues have raised must also be kept in the balance. Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, which I am sure are genuine, I remain concerned that the effect of the Bill, as now proposed, will be to put other objectives lower in the pecking order of decision making than the requirement to consider the needs of economic growth, and I certainly hope that those points can be teased out and clarified at a later stage in the Bill’s progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In fact, we have scrapped all targets apart from the target of reducing crime, which is the most important thing that the police do.

Statistics must be as robust as possible. That is why we have transferred responsibility for crime statistics to the independent Office for National Statistics and have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an audit on the quality of crime recording in every police force. Moreover, the Home Secretary has written to all chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly.

Let me also point out to my hon. Friend, and indeed to everyone, that what is notable about the recent crime statistics is that, whether we look at crimes recorded by the police or at the British crime survey, they both show that crime is falling, and has already fallen by more than 10%.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q8. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments about Mohammad Asghar, from Edinburgh, and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). Dozens of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers have said that tomorrow they will support an amendment to the Immigration Bill which everyone knows to be totally incompatible with the European treaties, and 95 Tory MPs have demanded that the British Parliament should be able to veto every single European Union law, which, as the Prime Minister knows, is totally unworkable. The Prime Minister has given concession after concession to his anti-Europeans. When will he finally learn that they will never be satisfied with anything but British withdrawal from the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we need to correct—and we will correct, in the Immigration Bill—the fact that it has been so difficult to deport people who do not have a right to be here, and who should be facing trial overseas or deported overseas, but advance spurious arguments about the right to a family life. It is right that we are changing that. There is nothing anti-European about it. It is a very sensible step that the Government are taking, and we should pass the Immigration Bill with all speed.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to have a chance to say a few words in tribute to Nelson Mandela. Edinburgh was one of the many UK cities that paid homage to Nelson Mandela by offering him the freedom of the city, which he gave us the honour of accepting. That award from Edinburgh came fairly late in the day—much later, I am afraid, than that from our friends in Glasgow—because Edinburgh city council required a two-thirds majority to grant someone freedom of the city and at the time the award was first suggested in the 1980s, as an act of solidarity, the council chamber did not, to put it tactfully, share the same political consensus on Nelson Mandela’s virtues as that shared by this Chamber today.

I am glad to say that when the freedom of the city was proposed some years later, shortly before the 1997 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh, the council agreed unanimously that it should be offered to Nelson Mandela, and President Mandela, as he then was, found the time to accept the award in person when he attended that Commonwealth meeting.

Although that freedom of the city came late, I can say with pride that we did not have to wait as long for the support given by many of the people of Edinburgh to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Like many communities up and down the country, many people in Edinburgh gave their support in many ways to the campaign against apartheid.

I want to mention three groups in particular. First, the Scottish trade unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers, headquartered in Edinburgh, played a leading role—similar to that played by the union in Wales, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis)—in the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Scotland. As in Wales, the Scottish churches played a leading role in the movement. I should also mention the Scottish academics and students, not least those of Edinburgh university, who were at the forefront of the disinvestment campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) also played an important part.

Edinburgh also became home to many exiles from South Africa during the apartheid years, no doubt because of those historic links and solidarity. In many cases, they were political activists who would, of course, have faced heavy penalties if they had conducted that activity in South Africa. They took part in, and inspired others to join, anti-apartheid campaigns in Edinburgh and elsewhere. Some of those South African exiles still live in Edinburgh. Although they will no doubt be in mourning, they will also be immensely proud of what Nelson Mandela did in his life for the country and for the world. As one of Edinburgh’s representatives in this Chamber, it is a great privilege and honour to have been able to offer my tribute to him today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on household and business energy bills.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on household and business energy bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to remind the House of this Government’s great achievement in establishing, and putting out for consultation, a strike price for island communities, which will make the development of renewable energy in communities such as his and mine a viable proposition at long last. That may have a contribution to make to tackling fuel poverty. I have already worked closely with the leader of his local council in this matter, and I urge him to do the same.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Government have been giving strong indications that they intend to move some of the cost of paying for energy efficiency to general taxation, and the Scottish National party Government have said that they want to do the same. Unless we also have measures such as Labour’s energy price freeze, would such a transfer not just let the energy companies off the hook and reduce the pressure on them to control prices?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the position announced by Nicola Sturgeon takes money off energy bills but is going to have to be made up for elsewhere. At a time when there is already a £3.4 billion black hole in the SNP figures, one has to think that that is not going to offer much hope for people struggling to pay their energy bills already. We all know the problems associated with his price freeze, and I have no doubt that they will be rehearsed in the House later today. My particular concern relates to the position of smaller energy companies, which are at risk of being forced out. If we reduce the number of companies in the market, we will see prices go up—that cannot be good.