(6 days, 22 hours ago)Commons Chamber
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a tireless advocate for Ynys Môn, particularly on the economy and jobs. Of course, Ynys Môn, the whole of Wales and north Wales will benefit from the new green jobs that this net zero strategy will help to foster. The new money announced today for the future nuclear enabling fund is for optionality for the future, so that we can make future decisions based on good information on nuclear. Obviously, that includes potential for sites such as Wylfa.
I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about connectivity, but what I will say to him is this: Scotland is vital for the UK’s energy needs, both currently and in the future. On oil and gas, 50% of the gas currently consumed in this country comes from the UK continental shelf, and Scotland is vital for that. It is also vital for our future offshore wind capabilities, and other low-carbon and renewable energies. That is exactly the technology, capability and capacity that I saw last week in Aberdeen. Perhaps he might get a little more optimistic about Scotland’s future when it comes to energy, because I certainly am.
(1 month ago)Commons Chamber
It would be foolhardy of me to speculate at the Dispatch Box on what the gas price will be even tomorrow. If I were in a position to know what the prices would be at a later date, I would probably not be a politician; I would probably be a gas trader. That aside, however, I think we have to accept that the prices could be high for longer than people anticipate, just as they could fall very quickly. The marginal dynamics of these markets can shift extremely rapidly. Those of us who followed the oil price last year will have seen that we had an oil price of $20 a barrel, and that in the same year it reached nearly $80. There is a considerable amount of volatility in these markets, and it would be rash of me to predict their course.
As I said earlier, we are committed to nuclear, which is the third point in the 10-point plan, and that means not just large-scale nuclear, but small modular reactors as well.
I do not really follow the hon. Gentleman’s question. On the one hand, he is saying that I am a free marketeer, but then he is asking me whether I think there should be a state-owned energy company. I think I would avoid the latter outcome, in so far as I can, but as I always say in these things, we are looking at all options. I think that there are market-based solutions. I think that the industry will come together and that, with the Government and Ofgem, we can plot a course through this.
(3 months ago)Commons Chamber
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her excellent question and for the work that she does in her constituency to highlight the benefits of being vaccinated—and fully vaccinated. The work that has gone on in Hyndburn is tremendous. We are working with local government to ensure that the NHS has flexibility, whether that is to launch pop-up sites or to increase the hours of vaccination during this period of Eid celebration in order to encourage more of our Muslim fellow citizens to come forward and get vaccinated. Of course, we are ensuring that there is lots of messaging and that people are just pointed to information, including through hyper-local media as well as some of the media with which my hon. Friend’s generation will be more familiar than mine, such as TikTok, social media influencers and YouTubers. That is all happening at scale. It is great to see that the number of appointments booked under the national booking system has almost doubled in the last couple of days, but there are also the walk-in centres, where people can just walk in and get their jab without an appointment.
That is a very important question. The JCVI is constantly reviewing the data from other countries that are vaccinating all children of 12 to 15 years old. Its concern has been centred around vaccinating healthy children. There is a very rare signal of myocarditis on first dose. The JCVI is awaiting more data on second dose. It will continue to review that and will come back to us, and, of course, we will come back to the House.
(3 months, 1 week ago)Commons Chamber
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent question. As I mentioned in my statement, an impact statement has been published today, and a full impact assessment will be made. Just to bring it to life for him, to reassure him and the House, I can say that Barchester Healthcare, one of the providers, has about 16,000 employees, so it is quite a large sample to look at, and it has implemented this policy early. When it consulted its workforce on the duty of deployment, it managed successfully to get the workforce to be vaccinated —they were on a priority list in phase 1 of the vaccination programme—and only 78 out of the workforce of 16,000, or about 0.5%, actually chose not to and no longer work for Barchester Healthcare. I hope that gives him some reassurance that we look at this data very carefully.
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I would just respectfully say that, on the contrary, the Government work with the diagnostics industry. Indeed, we were able to scale up. When we entered this pandemic, we were only capable of doing about 2,000 tests a day, but we now have a PCR testing capacity of 600,000, as he will have heard earlier, and millions of lateral flow tests. I think it is the combination of both those things that works, but if there are other companies in his constituency or indeed elsewhere in the country that he thinks are worth looking at, I will certainly put them through to the relevant team in the Department.
(5 months ago)Commons Chamber
I join my hon. Friend in thanking the local team for going above and beyond, and, as I said earlier, it is all about that spirit of Dunkirk and the coming together of the nation to deliver the vaccination programme. A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced the therapeutics taskforce, which is moving at pace to identify therapeutics and antivirals to help people who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated and to give us a greater arsenal in our armoury against this pandemic.
I just remind the hon. Member that, at this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister announced a full inquiry that will take place in the spring of 2022, where we can learn all the lessons of the covid pandemic and the Government’s response to it. Suffice to say that all contracting is published in the appropriate way, and civil servants follow the exact rules around contracting.
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)Commons Chamber
I am grateful to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee for his question, and he is absolutely right. The manufacturers are already working on variants to their vaccine to take into account the mutation of the virus. Viruses will mutate to survive and this virus is no different. There are about 4,000 mutations now around the world, some more concerning than others. We have, in the United Kingdom, a genome sequencing industry that is a world leader—about 50%, or just under, of the sequencing has taken place in the United Kingdom. Not only are we working with the current manufacturers—Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Moderna —that have been approved, but we are also looking at how we can make sure that we make the most of the new messenger RNA technology, which allows the rapid development of vaccine variants that will then deal with the virus variants as rapidly as possible. When I spoke to the Science and Technology Committee a few weeks ago, I said that we were planning to have in place the ability to go from the moment that we can sequence a variant that we are really concerned about to the moment that we can have a vaccine ready in between 30 to 40 days, with then, of course, the manufacturing time.
We have invested in Oxfordshire, in the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, and in the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult Manufacturing Innovation Centre in Braintree—£127 million there and just shy of £100 million in Oxfordshire—to be ready to manufacture any vaccine that we would need. The Prime Minister, of course, also visited those making what I refer to as our seventh vaccine, the Valneva vaccine. That is a whole inactivated virus, so it does not just work on the spikes in the way that the two current vaccines that we are deploying work. It works on the whole of the virus, which is much more likely to capture any mutations from the spikes and therefore be incredibly effective. We have invested in that production facility in Scotland so that we can have that vaccine as a future-proofing of annual vaccination strategies or a booster in the autumn, if necessary.
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question, albeit, dare I say, I do not recognise his description of our collaboration. We have, over the past two weeks, been working solidly. The British Army—the armed forces—have been working to deliver 80 vaccination sites in Scotland and to hand them over to NHS Scotland within 28 days, and that work began a couple of weeks ago. So I hope he recognises the effort the United Kingdom is putting in not just in supplying the vaccines for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but in the way we are trying to support the vaccine deployment in Scotland.
Of course, last weekend was our target to make sure that every eligible care home in England was visited, and over 10,000 care homes have actually been visited and received the vaccine. Only a handful of care homes, which were deemed to have an outbreak, were not visited. The NHS, quite rightly, celebrated achieving that target last weekend, so I am slightly saddened, in a way, that there is this politicking between ourselves about this issue.
We continue—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked me—to work very hard to make sure that staff in care homes are also offered the vaccine on those visits, and they also have an opportunity to be vaccinated in their primary care networks and, of course, in hospitals.
On the JCVI, those who are clinically extremely vulnerable are in category 4, and we will vaccinate them by mid-February.
(11 months ago)Westminster Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The interdependence of the various sectors in coming together really puts the UK in a unique position in the way it advances so much medicine. Over recent months, in response to covid-19, we have also seen the incredible work of all the sectors, which have come together to try to beat this virus. Charities play that crucial role, and they are playing it today as they try to support individuals through this difficult time.
We know that a £310 million shortfall in funding will have significant consequences. Cuts always do. As we heard, it will take about four and a half years to recover from the downturn. Tragically, that will all be too late for some. This year alone, it is predicted that we will see a 41% decline in research spending. Many PhDs, fellowships and other opportunities will be denied, cutting vital skills in medical research. If postgraduate researchers do not have the opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge, we will be at risk of losing a generation of medical research. That is why significant investment is needed to save the sector.
With 34% of staff furloughed, clinical trials have been paused and delayed to protect research in the longer term. Without additional funding, there is little hope that those trials will restart. That means that families, such as that of a constituent who came to me, will never see the opportunity to extend their lives and to have a quality life for longer.
The sector is rightly calling for a life science charity partnership fund to fund the research part of its work. That would be built on a match funding principle and would start with a three-year programme of investment into research. The Medical Research Council is seeking a commitment of £310 million in its first year to match the funding it has lost this year due to the lack of funding resource. Not only will that research-driven approach help with economic recovery in the wider field and reduce unemployment, but it help us to continue to lead advances in medicine.
Like all charities, medical research charities have not been served well during this crisis. In fact, that has been a major oversight on the part of the Government. Medical research charities provide not just research but crucial support to their beneficiaries. Over the last six months, I have met many research charities, which have told me about the work they are undertaking, and that work has expanded during the pandemic.
Many organisations provide support services to the people and families who depend on them. The NHS is less accessible, so people have turned to the charities they know and trust for additional advice and support. Regular therapeutic interventions have often not been available on the NHS because of its focus on covid-19—we all understand that—and appointments have been cancelled. People have turned to the charities they know and the relationships they have to seek advice on issues such as where to get food, shielding, what protections they have for their health, and how to support relatives and family members at such a delicate time.
Other organisations, which would normally provide psychological support or respite support or perhaps fund parents to stay near their child as they receive treatment, have also been under great strain. Many of these organisations have described demand for their helpline more than doubling as people turn to them for support. However, they have not received additional support from the Government in response to covid.
Yes, the Government did provide £750 million to all charities, although we must remember that 168,000 charities have had to share that money. However, I must stress that that money was for additional support directly relating to covid-19. Of that money, £2 million went straight to the hospice movement, and rightly so, although that money is now spent, and more is needed. The rest is being divided between the larger charities, and there is a pot for smaller organisations. However, the majority of charities have not received anything over this time, and we have heard today that medical research charities certainly have not had their share.
This was all a direct response to covid, and we have seen more demands being placed on charities, as I have set out. That has also meant that more investment is needed by those organisations. Charities themselves may have direct funding for funded spend, but they are really struggling with their core costs. If their core costs are not met, the charities cannot deliver the specific outcomes we all know so much about from our constituents. It is vital, therefore, that the Government step up tomorrow with a package to address those core costs. Charities have already lost £10 billion in the last six months, and they predict they will lose 60,000 staff. Some 20% of charities will not be there if the Government do not make that investment. They say they value charities, but charities need valuing with resources, and without those resources, they will not continue.
We know that fundraising opportunities have all but dried up. We know that retail, which has been successful since its return, has now been locked down yet again, and therefore the income of organisations is in a perilous situation. That is why the Government need to step up at this point. Many charities did not qualify for the grants that were available, and of course have struggled and still have bills to pay. As the charity sector says itself, rightly and proudly, it has never been more needed, but I would add that it has never been more in need. That is why it is vital that, after today’s debate, the Minister goes back to the Treasury one more time to make the case for research charities and all charities, to make sure they have the research support, funding and investment they need.
Charities are not an optional extra. We know that because, as we have heard during today’s debate, the outcomes they deliver—in not only research but care support and civil society—transform people’s lives. Some 7 million people every year generously donate to medical research charities, often as the result of personal experience or the loss of a loved one. The paucity of the response compared with the public contribution needs to be addressed. Charities stretch their pound further than any other sector, and they provide the highest standards in research and care. They are essential, yet in just a few months’ time, they may no longer be there. We need a robust response from the Minister today, and we need a financial response from the Chancellor tomorrow.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), my near neighbour, on securing this extremely important and well-timed debate. We have heard some good and compelling speeches from across the board, from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). We are all making similar arguments.
By way of opening, we have heard many debates over recent weeks, both here and in the main Chamber, about the sectors and parts of our society that have been drastically hit by the consequences of the covid-19 crisis. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd on bringing forward the debate because it is an area that has had a lot less attention than some others.
As others have said, as we are all making similar arguments, medical research charities carry out vital work that helps us to understand diseases and find new ways to treat, manage and prevent conditions. They provide that hope and support for many that would otherwise not be there. As the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd clearly outlined, we have a world-class sector in the UK. From state-of-the-art brain imaging, which helps us learn more about the earlier stages in diseases such as Alzheimer’s, to the development of novel techniques to help revive and repair donor kidneys before transplantation, and to the study of data to help speed up cancer diagnosis, medical research is changing lives, especially with some of the rare diseases that we have discussed today.
During the covid crisis, charity funding has plummeted, which has had a stark and immediate knock-on impact on medical research, as we have heard. Charities are projecting that it will take more than four years for spend to return to pre-crisis levels. With a big chunk of around half of all medical research coming from charities, we must not underestimate the impact that will have and continue to have on the health and wellbeing of our country for many years to come.
The UK sector is facing an existential crisis, yet, like so many other sectors, it has unfortunately so far been excluded from specific Government support. Medical research charities predict a shortfall in spend over the next year of at least £310 million. Research by the IPPR reveals that medical research charities expect this year to lose 38% of fundraising income, and over 25% next year. The thinktank estimates that there will be a cumulative £7.8 billion shortfall in health research and development investment between now and 2027, or 10% of all UK health R&D.
What does that mean in practical terms? As we have heard in the debate, there is, first, the immediate impact on medical trials and research and on patients and all those affected by disease. Almost three quarters of clinical trials and studies funded by AMRC charities were either scrapped or mothballed during the first lockdown, and although some have been picked since, many have not. Medical studies to be cancelled or stalled include those tackling the UK’s biggest killers—dementia, coronary heart disease and cancer—which could have long-term consequences. The Stroke Association states that three quarters of its funded research projects have been suspended because of the pandemic.
In the long term, less money for medical research means fewer trials and studies and fewer patients able to participate in this life-changing work. Last year, 213,000 people took part in 1,200 clinical trials or studies funded by medical research charities. Medical research charities have played a key role in breakthroughs over the past century, and we heard about some of them today.
The second impact is on researchers and the skilled workforce. Medical research investment is used to fund PhD students, fellowships and other early career researchers. Last year, 17,000 researcher salaries were funded by AMRC charities. Less money simply means fewer of them; fewer of them means losing out on their skills and talents, and on the important scientific progress that they could make in the years ahead. It will also further accelerate the unemployment crisis we face. Sadly, a recent AMRC study found that four in 10 are considering leaving research altogether, owing to funding concerns. The same survey found that 61% of charities have had to cut or cancel support for early career researchers and the skilled research roles.
The third impact is on health R&D funding and the wider economy. Nosediving research and development will affect the whole economy. As we have heard, every £1 invested in medical research delivers a return equivalent to roughly an extra 25p on that investment.
Charity research funding stimulates investment from the private sector, as we have heard, and from universities, further boosting our economy and research sector. It is an ecosystem and it relies on all the system being able to play its part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, it can and does play a key role in reducing some regional inequalities and, with more than half of medical research coming from charities outside London and the south-east, in the so-called levelling up agenda by contributing to regional economic growth. Charities have a better record in this respect than Government research funding, under which about 80% goes to the golden triangle. There is definitely an opportunity to switch that balance.
Despite the importance of medical research charities to scientific progress and to people’s lives, and despite the significant role they play in our economy, unfortunately the Government have not given them the support they needed during this difficult time. I understand that there are many pressures on the Government’s finances and many calls for help, but only 3% of the country’s medical research charities were eligible for the Government’s charity support package—just five out of the 152 medical research charities. More than 150 were ineligible, and that included those researching conditions such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, breast cancer, hearing loss, bone cancer, liver disease, meningitis, Crohn’s, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and many more. This is a huge blow to patients who rely on breakthroughs in those treatments.
Fortunately, given the well-timed nature of this debate and where we are today, there is an opportunity tomorrow for the Government to rectify that. The Opposition hope that, in the spending review, the Government will consider the proposal for the life sciences charity partnership to help plug the funding gap. This is now critical and urgent, and in the week when the Oxford vaccine for coronavirus has made such brilliant progress, what better way to support the life sciences in this country and recognise their contribution than to support this partnership fund? It would be a partnership arrangement and there would be matched funding. In the grand scheme of things, £310 million would be an investment well made. It is not a huge amount of money.
(1 year ago)Commons Chamber
We have handed out £11 billion-worth of cash grants to businesses across the country. In terms of the underspend, the under-allocation varied by local authorities and how much money they could get to those businesses, which is why we need to have it in to reconcile. I work with the wedding sector. At the moment it is impossible to work through a system that makes it viable for those businesses to open beyond a certain number. However, they will be viable businesses in the future.
Ministers have clearly set out the benefits to all UK businesses of ensuring that goods and services can flow freely across the UK. That is in Scotland’s interests, given that it exports more to the rest of the UK than to the EU. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I have spent about 12 hours on these Benches with the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), having discussions and debating this issue.
Spending from the UK Government will be complementary to that coming from the Scottish Government. We want to add to that and to make sure that the UK economy can flourish. Scottish business will be at risk without the regulatory certainty of this Bill, so we want to prevent additional layers of complexity.
(1 year, 1 month ago)Commons Chamber
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I said in my earlier intervention, it is not just about the relatively small issues that the whistleblowers highlight. It is about the wider cultural issue. It shows the mismatch of power between the whistleblower, these big, powerful organisations and their customers, which we know we need to tackle, but we would not know that without people like Sally Masterton. I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this legislation. I hope she is successful; she will be sooner or later.
(1 year, 1 month ago)Commons Chamber
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. “So get on with it”, would be my suggestion to him and his colleagues. I have heard several points of strong opposition to the Bill rather than engagement. A more constructive engagement with the UK Government would help everyone, because as he rightly says the internal market is a shared asset between the four component nations of the UK. So I urge him and his party to encourage that work with the UK Government.
On the specific clauses in the Bill, I have a general point to make. We are very keen as politicians to do the new things, set new regulations, but we spend very little time checking whether they work or whether the regulatory body is doing any good or indeed doing what it said it would do in the first place, so it is important to get a bit more precision from the Government in some of the words they use in the Bill.
Clause 29 talks about the reports—the Minister may be able to help—the Competition and Markets Authority must prepare or report on. Clause 29(5)(b) states:
“developments as to the effectiveness of the operation of that market.”
The word “effectiveness” can have lots of different meanings to lots of different people. What remit are we giving to the Office for the Internal Market on how it will judge the definition of an effective operation of the market? Does it, for example, include whether the operation of the market continues to have the consent of all constituent devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom? Does it mean that the country has an adequate spread of production across the country? Does it mean that each market is promoting competition? Does it mean that prices are going down? The word “effectiveness” covers a lot of issues.
That issue also relates to clause 29(8), which states:
“So far as a report under this section is concerned with the effective operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom, the report may consider (among other things)—…(i) competition, (ii) access to goods and services, (iii) volumes of trade”.
I would say that that is a partial list. There may be other aspects that we would wish the Office for the Internal Market to look into when it considers the operation of the internal market, some of which I have mentioned. For example, is the Minister considering, or would he consider, that that should include the impact of the internal market on consumer rights? Should it include regional disparities? Most importantly, should it include innovation and competition?
Clause 30(3)(a) talks about advising on proposed regulatory provisions on request. This is an important issue relating to the points raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, which is not only on the decision authorities but the scope for devolved Administrations to raise issues with the Office for the Internal Market. Clause 30(3) states:
“The condition is that it appears to the requesting authority that—
(a) the regulatory provision to which the proposal relates would fall within the scope of this Part and be within relevant legislative competence, and
(b) the proposal should be further considered in the light of the significance of its potential effects on the operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom.”
It seems to me, particularly in light of the desire of devolved Administrations to have some potential for innovations in regulations such as minimum alcohol pricing, that that “and” might be better considered as an “or”. It would be feasible for devolved Administrations to raise issues which may be outside the scope of their current remit of responsibilities, but for which the devolved Administrations, elected by their local voters, wish to see as a potential regulatory change in the future. What is the harm that could be caused by enabling that to be considered by the Office for the Internal Market?
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) tabled amendment 21 to clause 35, which relates to participation in the Competition and Markets Authority. Obviously, she may wish to speak to her amendment directly, but I draw the attention of the Minister to the issue of participation in the CMA. It is a relevant question to ask who will be on those bodies. We put the so-called great and the good on such regulators, but we do not really know who they are. What oversight do we have of their performance? What oversight and decision rights do we have of appointments? Would it not be a consideration to spread that beyond this Parliament to include devolved Administrations? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, as well as her new clause 4.
I welcome the Bill. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned, the internal market is a shared asset and we all want it to work effectively. The Bill is a very good start in making us move in the right direction, but we need some prudence in its implementation. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) for her intervention to clarify some points on where we stand in relation to the common framework.
Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I draw his attention to the fact that he needs to address the amendments before us. This is not a Second Reading speech all over again; it is important to address what is before the House today.
Is not the power grab compounded by the fact that the Government clearly intend to push this legislation through without legislative consent to the Bill from any of the devolved Administrations? When they ask, “Where is the power grab? Give us an example,” that is it. They are refusing even to accept the fact that the devolved legislatures will not consent to the Bill and they will not engage in its detail. The power grab runs right the way through this process.
Sorry, I was a bit keen. Do you agree that without the Bill—without the internal market structure—Scotland would be worse off? [Interruption.] Forgive me, but let me explain my point. I will not talk about whisky, because we always do that when we are talking about Scotland; I will talk about lenses for glasses, which are often made in Scotland. A large number of them are made in Scotland and go across the whole UK. If we did not have the internal market structure, then there could be tariffs—restrictions—on their being sold in, say, Wales or England. So why would you not want to accept this now?
The internal market does not just guarantee costs and prices of things—it also guarantees standards. One of my favourite Scotland-to-England exports is BrewDog’s Punk IPA. How can the hon. Member, without the internal market, guarantee that my pint of Punk IPA in Peterborough is the same quality as in Aberdeen?
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said with what the Scottish Retail Consortium has said, which is that protecting the UK internal market means that
It talks about the importance of the
“largely unfettered internal single market”.
In the consortium’s view, Scotland welcomes the measures to protect the UK internal market.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that the protestations that there is some kind of power surge are simply incompatible with the suggestion that the Office for the Internal Market will be set up in such a way as to enable it to lie above the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
I want to look at the clauses. On clause 28, it is proposed that “Scotland” be left out. On clause 29, amendment 29 would insert that following a legislative appeal from all the devolved powers, we would have a consultation before any changes. On clause 35, it is proposed that prior to publishing any information, the CMA must consult all Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers and the devolved Administrations. All these amendments seem to have one thing in common: they are asking for all consultation on how we move our internal market forward to be done with the devolved powers in the United Kingdom. Many in the House have raised the issue of who will be holding the CMA to account. We here represent the entire United Kingdom. We are elected to represent all parts of the United Kingdom.