What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Before I call Richard Burgon, I would like to make a point to Members contributing to this morning’s debate. I remind Members to be careful if they choose to refer to other Members in this debate. If you wish to refer to a specific Member, you should have given them notice, and I would appreciate it if you mentioned this in your remarks. Please also ensure that your comments are, as always, appropriate.
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. After the next speech, I will be reducing speeches to five minutes.
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak a little bit more loudly? We seem to be having a few issues with the audio today.
With immediate effect, I ask Members to keep their speeches to around five minutes.
Order. With immediate effect, there will be a five-minute limit on speeches.
Order. Can I just remind Members about their choice of language? It is okay to use certain vocabulary in general—in non-specific terms—but when they are speaking about particular Members, I ask Members to be very careful about the use of language such as “grifting”.
I remind Members that direct criticism can be made only on a substantive motion. The particular language or assertion was perhaps not appropriate.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Israel’s planned illegal expansion in the E1 zone in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Just yesterday, the Israel Land Authority published new dates for the tender for the construction of the proposed E1 settlement zone in the west bank. The bidding period for the tender ends in October, and once the contracts have been awarded, it will become impossible to stop E1. Why is E1 so critical? It is because the proposed settlement would absolutely and permanently destroy any prospect of a true two-state solution. It is a large area of land that would split the west bank from north to south, severing connections between Palestinian communities and East Jerusalem, while forcibly transferring 7,000 Palestinians—itself a war crime under the Rome statute. A few of us visited just four weeks ago. We saw at first hand the accelerated pace at which Israel is expanding its illegal settlements. A massive 2,000 housing units have been approved since that visit alone according to the United Kingdom chargé d’affaires at the UN on Monday. It is clear that Israel is systematically and deliberately doing all it can to make a two-state solution impossible, and its impunity must end. Will the Minister make categorically clear today that any businesses or organisations, including financial and insurance institutions, or individuals that participate in or facilitate the construction of the E1 zone, will be sanctioned and not allowed to trade and do business with the UK, and will the Government legislate accordingly as a matter of urgency? Secondly, alongside 139 parliamentary colleagues, I have urged the Minister to end all trading with illegal Israeli settlements. Can I once again urge the Minister to implement a full ban and suspend the free trade agreement with Israel, based on its continued violations of human rights and the prospect of this development? Palestine is fracturing before our eyes. Our intelligence can see this. The international community must stop E1.
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. This is fantastic news for my constituents, my farmers and my businesses. Does she welcome the statement from the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, which said that increasing the rates of approved mileage allowance payments is absolutely the right thing to do right now?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she agree that there is genuine excitement and joy from families when they see the benefits of this investment? She and I have both witnessed that in our community in Reading. The Government are building on a great tradition in that local authority; I wish other local authorities invested to that extent.
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome the work to make the scheme fairer and more sustainable. Can she say a little more about the measures under way to encourage rewilding, the planting of trees and other measures further upstream in river catchments, as well as measures to encourage all landowners to behave responsibly and to stop temporary dams from building up under culverts, bridges or in other locations where localised flooding might otherwise happen?
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard from powerful advocates for the glass industry, the fibre-based composites industry, the ceramics industry, the wine industry in Cornwall and, of course, the beer and pub industry, which we are all hoping to go and enjoy shortly. Let me begin by also declaring my interest as a member of the GMB trade union. I recognise the challenging context in which the glass industry operates; that is a result of a range of global pressures, including the international increases in energy costs, volatile commodity prices, growing international competition, and substantial investment in decarbonising energy-intensive manufacturing processes. I also recognise and acknowledge the industry’s concerns about packaging extended producer responsibility, or PEPR, which is an internationally recognised model used in more than 30 countries to transform recycling services. The model shifts the cost of managing packaging waste from taxpayers—that is us—to the producers who put it on the market. It is the “polluter pays” principle in action. Its introduction in this country is the biggest change to recycling policy in 25 years. The policy was formulated under the previous Conservative Government. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is no longer in his place, but it was his Government who first began developing it back in 2018-19. There was a debate on it on the Floor of the House, in which he did not register his objections, and he did not vote against it. Perhaps he was absent, or chatting to his new friends in a different party. Since PEPR has been brought in, the money raised from packaging producers and retailers has gone directly to councils to fund the introduction of simpler recycling—the new recycling collections that we have. That does not include the food waste collections, although they are part of simpler recycling. Last year, PEPR raised over £1.4 billion for local authorities to deliver better recycling services for people in every nation of the UK. Our goal is to get from 45% recycled—that is where we have stagnated over the last decade—to 65% recycled by 2035. That is an important goal. The food waste collections—they are not paid for through PEPR—are part of the simpler recycling reforms and a really important part of taking the methane out of our bins. Let me come to glass fees. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham rightly said, year 1 PEPR fees took account only of the weight and volume of materials. That reflected the cost to local authorities of collecting and disposing of the materials. Following her excellent Westminster Hall debate last year, we have worked at pace, and I am pleased to tell hon. Members that from this year—year 2—we are bringing in lower fees for more recyclable packaging. Our latest data shows that more than 93% of glass will receive a “green” discount for being recyclable. This means that producers of harder-to-recycle “red” materials, such as crisp packets, will pay a premium. The system is designed to reward the right choices. The incentive to make the right choices will increase, because in years 3 and 4, producers of “red” materials—the more complex forms of packaging—will pay even higher fee rates than those do who use more recyclable, “green” materials, like glass. The forecasts that I have seen expect the glass sector to pay a decreasing share of PEPR costs in years 2 and 3. In year 4, that will fall even further, as the penalty for “red” packaging will reach double the basic “green” rate.
Again, we have a complex system. I would very much like to give my hon. Friend the amounts per tonne, but that is not possible, much though I would like to give her comfort, until all packaging producers have reported their data in the autumn. We will then issue the invoices. I can say that the proportion that the glass sector will pay will fall year on year. We have been listening very carefully to the glass industry on that issue. PackUK, the scheme administrator, and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meet the glass sector and British Glass regularly, and PackUK ran a workshop just this week, which included British Glass, on how we can drive the use of more recyclable materials. Everything that PackUK does is subject to four-nation agreement. We had a meeting this morning with the devolved Governments, at which we talked through some of the issues. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland face very different challenges, and the challenges of collecting in inner-city London are not comparable to those of collecting waste in the Outer Hebrides. The model is therefore complex from the recycling and collections point of view as well. Returning to glass, PackUK and DEFRA officials will visit Ardagh Glass later this month. The visit was due to take place in June, but it was rescheduled at Ardagh’s request. PackUK also visited Encirc in Northern Ireland last month. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) about the issue around the reduction in energy fees, but those do not apply in Northern Ireland. That is another—well, we could talk about Brexit, but perhaps we will not intrude on that private pain. May I also say that since we debated glass fees last year, DEFRA officials have visited five of the six major glass manufacturers in the UK to hear from them directly, and that includes Beatson Clark? We are acting on their concerns. Also, we have investment in the glass industry in this country; we have a new electric glass factory at Verallia in Leeds.
I want to make a little bit of progress, if I may, because it is four minutes to kick-off.
I want to make some progress, and my hon. Friend may find that I answer her questions. PackUK has today published improved guidance on how recyclability will be assessed and rewarded. The glass section was developed in close collaboration with the glass industry and we have already received positive feedback. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said about wool. When I see wool used as a coolant, it tends to come in plastic packaging, for hygiene reasons. That packaging can certainly be open up, and the wool can then be composted, but there is usually a film around it, and under the recyclability assessment methodology, that would incur higher fees. All this is meant to incentivise design for recyclability. I was due to meet a wool insulation provider this week. Sadly, I was not able to, but she was on her way down, and I believe that she met officials. I will check that later. I am keen to do work on this issue, because it is particularly important for the British wool industry, with wool at such rock-bottom prices. We are planning to launch a call for evidence this year to gather industry views, which will inform how we continue to reward the right choices. On the post-implementation review, it will be conducted and published in the normal way, three years after the regulations came in. That is slated for December 2028.
I cannot speak for what happened under the previous Administration, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was announced in 2018, and a consultation happened in 2019. There was another consultation, but I cannot find the exact part of my pack on that. There was a full impact assessment of PEPR published in October 2020, setting out the expected overall costs to businesses. At that stage, it was not possible to assess the impact on specific sectors or regions, as fees and modulation had not been finalised. This has been a huge infrastructure project change, and a huge system change. The Environment Agency, acting as the regulator, holds the database of everyone who is a packaging producer. Elsewhere in the waste and packaging sector, we see large issues around avoidance, free riding and other issues, so we had to go through a massive piece of work with our regulator to ensure that everyone who is putting packaging on is meeting their obligations. There were public consultations in 2019 and 202,1 and a consultation on draft regulations in 2023. There was a consultation with British Glass on the decision to use volume in the apportionment of kerbside recycling collection costs in July 2024, prior to the release of the initial set of illustrative base fees. I think that there was perhaps a misunderstanding, given that this had all been thought about and discussed for five or six years, that it was never going to happen. To be fair to the smaller companies, perhaps they were unaware of their obligations, or perhaps they were not obligated at that time, but have since grown and been brought over the de minimis threshold. Let me talk a little bit more about what the Government are doing more widely to support glass businesses with their electricity costs.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and this is something that I have been insistent with officials on. This is a complex scheme, and the more complexity we add into it, the more time it will take. There is a trade-off here, and a set of difficulties, because we can do carve-outs for x and y sector, but that creates more complexity in the recycling assessment methodology calculations for other parts of the packaging industry. We have to beware of making perfection the enemy of the good. I can also let my hon. Friend know that the chief executive officer of PackUK, Jeremy Blake, met the WoolCool CEO yesterday. I thought that had happened, but I am glad to have got the note telling me it is true. Beyond this, we are supporting the glass businesses with their electricity costs through the British industry supercharger. Glass businesses now receive 90% compensation for electricity network charges. This brings their total reduction in electricity bills to an average of between £65 and £87 per megawatt-hour. We are also supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with lower tax rates for their properties. On the issue around cheaper imports coming from overseas, the Trade Remedies Authority’s independent anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into cheaper glass imports from China and Turkey are ongoing. That is dealt with by another Government Department. We are working closely with industry to address the challenge of dual use—packaging disposed of in either business or household waste streams. We know how important this issue is to stakeholders across different sectors, including pubs, hospitality and medical packaging businesses, and construction. Indeed, I met a representative of the paint industry at a B&Q in my Coventry East constituency. Paint will always come in a tin or plastic container with a coating inside it, so it will never attract “green” fees, but we want to get that paint recycled, reused or repurposed. B&Q is doing some excellent work with the charity Neighbourly to ensure that paint has a second life. People do not know what to do with unused paint. Builders finish using a pot, then down into the drain the rest goes, adding to the diffuse water pollution that we are experiencing across our sewer network. This is a tricky issue, but we need a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced. It is no good just saying, “Oh, everyone decides that all their stuff goes to the pubs” and then suddenly we are left with a massive shortfall in the fees, so it has to be verifiable. We are testing solutions, including for hospitality, and building on international best practice, looking in particular at the Austrian model. I held a roundtable with industry last year to look at solutions for the dual-use challenge. It is difficult, but I hope for a solution on this issue soon that does not add undue complexity to the scheme or make it impossible for the regulator to verify.
A try!
I am looking to my officials in the Box, and I think it is probably safest if I write to my hon. Friend on that issue. Let me tell the House about the year 1 shortfall in fees. There was a shortfall in the fees this year as we allowed packaging producers to submit their tonnages and then their tonnages reduced because, obviously, they looked at their figures and reduced them. We listened to industry on that. Despite the regulations saying that actually industry should make up any shortfall, my Department took pressure off businesses by funding on an exceptional basis to hold fees down. We are taking steps this year to ensure that we do not have a repeat of that. On early successes, we are hearing about PEPR bringing about change. Councils all over the UK are using this funding from the packaging industry to improve services to local people. In Tameside, the metropolitan council is investing £1.6 million in new vehicles and improved technology to deliver a more reliable service for taxpayers. Councils are investing to improve glass collection directly, which should benefit the industry in terms of the supply of high-quality cullet. For example, Aberdeenshire council is investing £5 million over 2 years to purchase a new three-compartment glass collection vehicle—I hope that is “vehicles”, but it says “vehicle” here—upgrading glass recycling points to reduce contamination, and improving the quality of glass recyclate, which we know really matters to the glass industry.
Obviously, I do not sit there and do the maths with people. These suggestions and potential solutions have to be modelled and worked through. We are working at pace to assess whether any targeted short-term measures could be introduced through the forthcoming PEPR amending statutory instrument to partially address the dual-use packaging issue. So we are working on a short-term solution, but we are also working on a longer-term solution, which is the Austrian model that I mentioned. Again, the hon. Gentleman may have been distracted by the whistle when I mentioned that. Councils across the country are rebranding and upgrading their glass recycling points to make it easier for households to use glass recycling facilities and to reduce the contamination that we know is so important to avoid in glassmaking. We have made a £5.3 million investment in that over a couple of years, and those changes are happening on the ground. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, reuse is not a short-term fix. It was once the norm when a lot of us—perhaps not all hon. Members present in the Chamber—were growing up, and it can be again. In some ways the future looks like the past—let us hope that is not the case for the England game. PEPR creates a powerful financial incentive for glass producers to move to reuse. Running reuse schemes means producers avoid most PEPR fee obligations, and glass, as we have heard, is a durable, tried and tested technology. While it requires up-front investment and system change, it shifts costs away from single-use production and disposal, it improves supply chain resilience and reduces costs over time. Reuse is already operating at scale internationally, particularly for glass. Reusing a glass bottle just five times can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third. The more times they are reused, the greater the benefits will be. As we have heard today, the issue is not just about the environment; it is also about jobs, communities and the long-term health of British industry. The industry estimates that these reforms will create 25,000 jobs and underpin £10 billion of investment in new sorting and processing facilities. The reforms will drive that improvement in our recycling rate and, crucially, they will reduce our carbon emissions. In conclusion, glass matters, industry matters and glassworkers matter. This Government back businesses and workers, and we back the transition to a circular economy that makes the country stronger, cleaner and more resilient. Change is coming to EPR and I reassure all hon. Members that we want to have a predictable, well set out framework within which business can confidently operate and householders can confidently know that what they put in their recycling streams is going to have a second, and hopefully third and fourth, life. Question put and agreed to.
Q3. Two of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend, and another mum from Leeds, Zoe Ward, all lost babies in different tragic circumstances, but they all went to the same funeral director, who did not treat their babies’ bodies with the dignity, care or respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here—the BBC, for its part, published what it could last year—but more shocking still is the fact that the police found nothing actionable in either case, because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. The individual in question is still operating in Leeds today. Given that the Department of Health and Social Care is due to make a decision about changing the law in this area, possibly before the Prime Minister leaves office, will he speak to Ministers and officials in that Department to ensure that when they consider the question of whether to regulate the funeral industry, their answer is yes?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this important debate. In 2024, Fleetwood and Lytham’s coastguard stations were officially recognised as the busiest in the UK. Only four days ago, Fleetwood coastguard rescue officers spotted around 20 teenagers out in the sea in Bispham. While some were able to get themselves out of the water safely, others were struggling. Coastguards then rescued three of the children, who were taken to hospital. Without our heroic coastguard, it could have been a lot worse. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to maintain the legal volunteer status of coastguards by removing their remuneration. That will have a terrible impact on my community, and it cannot be allowed to happen.
I do. To make things even worse, according to the GMB, members were informed of the removal of the payment by a WhatsApp message. We all know that coastguards are not motivated by financial reward; they come into this role to serve their community, protect our residents and save lives. Coastguards in my constituency have told me that they already lose income from their main work, as call-outs are often late at night and during working hours. They also miss out on time with their loved ones because they are keeping our community safe. Removing their remuneration is unsustainable for our coastguards, and we cannot afford to lose them.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I am sure that the Minister will look at that suggestion—well, I hope so, anyway. One coastguard wrote to me stressing that removing this support risked affecting availability, recruitment and retention. They warned that we might lose capacity in people and in skills that would take years to rebuild. I have written to the CEO of the Maritime Coastguard Agency to express my concern and I call on the Government to ensure that a sustainable remuneration model is found. We owe it to our coastguards to get this right. I will be grateful for answers to the following questions. First, have the Government considered options that would allow for remuneration while complying with employment law? Secondly, how will the Government ensure operational resilience if large numbers of coastguards leave, and has an impact assessment of that happening been made? Finally, do the Government believe that it is sustainable to rely on volunteers who receive expenses only?
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate. As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset. Whether they are locating missing and vulnerable people, responding to injured climbers, walkers and sailors or, tragically, recovering those who have lost their lives, coastguard rescue teams across South Dorset are highly skilled and essential to keeping local people and visitors safe along our Jurassic coast. That is why I am incredibly concerned about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s changes to volunteers’ remuneration following the handing down of Court of Appeal’s judgment earlier this year. Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether. Those concerns were powerfully illustrated to me by one of my constituents, whose family have served in the service for more than 150 years across five generations. His recognition and bravery were rewarded and recognised with a Queen’s gallantry medal in 2017. Despite that lifelong commitment to the coastguard rescue service, he told me that the proposed changes could leave him unable to dedicate the time and effort that he once did. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the concerns of coastguard volunteers in South Dorset and across the country. I fear that without action and direct intervention, the real impact of these changes will be devastating for coastal communities across the country. That is painfully clear from their stories. We all know that the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is wholly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand. For all these volunteers, we can and must do better.
Last month, I announced a defining moment for children and families, banning social media companies from providing their services to under-16s, banning livestreaming and stranger communication for under-16s on services, including gaming, and making Britain the first country in the world to ban sexualised chatbots for under-18s. This Government, and I personally, will continue to take all the measures necessary to keep children safe online.
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on these issues. Young people’s voices have been, and will continue to be, heard. We had 14,000 children and young people respond to our consultation and they raised issues such as the ones mentioned by my hon. Friend. We want to give children the best possible start in life. There are further measures that I hope to announce, including on breaks in infinite scrolling, and I look forward to making a further statement to the House.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s urging. We do indeed intend to look at further measures about this. As I have said, including to the Chair of the Select Committee, I will look once again at the challenges around misinformation and disinformation; this summer we will be consulting on the very issue of digital replicas and launching a taskforce on labelling AI content. That is part of the work we are doing around the creative sector, but it is also about tackling misinformation and disinformation and protecting our children and our democratic process.
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that this is not a “one and done”, as I said in my statement last week. It cannot be, because technology is changing so fast. I have looked seriously at the fact that the Online Safety Act 2023 took eight years from initial idea to implementation, and that is not good enough. We have taken powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to address features and functions, which I think will help, but I am sure there is much more we can do. I have said that this is not a one and done, and I will always be willing to look at further measures.
I saw the documentary and absolutely agree how concerning it is. I bet that many men, even some in this Chamber, will have been fed this vile stuff just because they are a man. We are looking at a whole range of measures. We are also looking at the issues of advertising and money, which are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question as they are driving a lot of this. The Minister for Digital Government and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is a joint Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is chairing a taskforce looking specifically at that matter, but I always like to see further recommendations, so the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) should send them in.
Of course I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, because I am focusing on doing my job, which is to do the right thing for children and families in this country. I hope the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) gets a good rest over the summer holidays too, and maybe works up some slightly more challenging questions.
I share the concerns of the good people of the hon. Member’s constituency about AI chatbots. I will come back with a further statement to the House about the things I said in my last statement, not only looking at further steps on AI chatbots—we have banned sexualised companion chatbots and the features within general chatbots that allow that to happen—but on overnight curfews, brakes on infinite scrolling and various other things. I will make the fullest possible update to the House on those measures, as I said I would.
Our economy loses around £3.5 billion a year because women leave the tech sector or change jobs due to barriers that should not exist. That is bad for women and for the tech sector because it loses out on their skills, talent and experience. It is why our women in tech taskforce is addressing the systematic barriers that prevent women from entering, progressing and leading this vital sector.
My hon. Friend is right that the bias in technology highlights why we need more women building it. We want more women in tech and more tech that works for women. That is exactly why we launched the women in tech taskforce. We will publish the results of its call for evidence next week. We have had a fantastic response, but we are not waiting to take action: we are launching a new tech first girls programme for 12 and 13 year olds, to help advance women’s careers by giving them minimum six- month placements, and we are putting our own house in order by ensuring Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, help software developers return to work after 18 months.
I think the most effective way to get change is to show the results that have been achieved by the women who produce the brilliant science and technology that helps to create innovations and bring in the cash. Women founders of tech companies get only 2p in every £1 in venture capital funding, yet on average they present 35% higher returns. If companies want better science and tech and a better economy, they had better get more women on board.
I am proud that today I am launching our charter for women in research, setting out minimum standards for maternity pay and leave for women doing PhDs in this country, alongside leave for their partners, adoption leave, leave for baby loss and pregnancy-related sickness. More than 64 organisations have already signed up. This is crucial for women, for the quality of science and tech and for our country, because Britain succeeds only when we make the most of all our talents.
I know that the hon. Lady is really concerned to ensure that her constituents have proper network coverage. We encourage mobile network operators to use existing infrastructure where they can, but I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data to get the progress that the people of North Shropshire need and deserve.
I am sorry to put the hon. Lady straight, but we are not cutting money for that. We are actually putting in the biggest funding for research and development ever in this country—something of which I am especially proud. We are protecting curiosity-led research and ensuring that we focus on the key priorities of this country, because we know there is no route to stronger growth or better answers and innovations without science and technology at its core.
I say gently to the hon. Lady that we are dealing with the mess we inherited from Conservative Members by ensuring that this country can rely on clean, renewable, home-grown energy right here in Britain. That is why we are driving the technological revolution in AI in our AI growth zones in Wales through three small modular nuclear reactors. It is also why this country has had more venture capital funding in our AI start-ups just this year than the whole of the rest of Europe. We are driving forward change to ensure that this country can succeed.