Barry Gardiner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that Members on the Government Benches appreciate the concessions that the Minister has already made. When he is talking about whether measures will be put in primary legislation, he must understand that Members will not be able to amend things if they are not in primary legislation. That is a key concern when we do not know the outcome of the review.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has put into the changes that have been made to the Bill. She spoke of cost shunting—the way that cuts in one area have forced people to claim in other areas, and those costs have risen. Does she not therefore think that it is important that the Government address those areas where the cuts have been made that forced people out, before we reduce the support for the new claimants that will be coming in?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  As the Member of Parliament for the largest Jewish school in Europe, may I thank the Foreign Secretary for his earlier assurances on safeguarding the community in this country? May I also commend the way in which he has diligently pursued a negotiated outcome to this destabilised situation? He knows that it used to be said that the Israeli Prime Minister jumped to the tune of America. Now that it seems to be the other way round, what action will he take against Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically, in order to stop the destabilisation of the middle east?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. I think we all agree that we should have thresholds that are proportionate and do not involve undue bureaucracy while ensuring that money is not badly spent or, indeed, that money that is spent is recovered where it should not have been spent in the first place. Given that we have proportionality in this area, I wondered whether the Minister could enlighten us whether we are looking to do the same in other areas, such as benefit overpayments.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. May I just ask the Minister whether the Government intend to bring in similar thresholds for such things as benefit overpayments?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  The failure to get transparent information from the United Nations Special Commission and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission caused untold damage 22 years ago. What discussions has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had with Director General Grossi at the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that there is real transparency and real information on which we can base any action?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Air India Plane Crash · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that as we speak, the Indian High Commission in London is holding a commemoration service for those who have been lost. He also knows that my constituency of Brent West, which includes Wembley, is the epicentre for the Gujarati community—more than 30% of my constituents are originally from Gujarat. I thank him for the way in which his officials have engaged and the help that they have been able to offer, but some of my constituents have had problems. The Saiyed family—mother, father and two adult children—were travelling together. Three of the bodies have been identified, but one body has not yet been identified. I understand that the DNA testing has now been randomised, but I urge the Minister to try to do everything he can to ensure that the four bodies can have the necessary funeral arrangements celebrated together, rather than waiting longer. He is absolutely right to say that it is important that the testing process is done correctly, to avoid further problems down the line, but families are in deep distress at the moment and it is important that we send every possible help to get the DNA testing done as quickly as possible.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Paragraph 7.36 of “Erskine May” states the process for setting out the ratification of international treaties. The Government’s treaty tracker says the global oceans treaty that the Leader of the House referred to earlier has not been ratified, and yet the BBNJ treaty—the global oceans treaty—was laid before this House on 16 October 2023. It appears the Government are misleading themselves in believing that they have to introduce legislation implementing the treaty before they can ratify it. Would she meet me to discuss the conundrum that appears to be stopping us going to the UN oceans conference next week and laying the instrument of ratification so that the treaty can come into force?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for how he has conducted this inquiry and presented the report to the House. I also thank the Clerks and officials who prepared the report under considerable stress—we are very grateful for their work. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect further on the situation with the BBNJ treaty. I spoke this morning to the Journal Office, the House of Commons Library specialist and the Clerk of the House, and it has become clear that the BBNJ treaty was in fact laid on the Table of the House on 16 October 2023, and its 21-day sitting period has therefore long since passed without objection. It appears that the Government are misleading themselves by saying that they have to pass the implementing primary legislation before they can ratify it and table the instrument of ratification at the United Nations ocean conference next week. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that ratification by 60 states is vital—we are two short at the moment, as I understand it—it is important that there is no statutory objection to our tabling the instrument next week, and that we should get on and do it?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Criminal Cases Review Commission: Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement from the Chair of the Select Committee and the appointment of Dame Vera Baird as the interim chair. Does my hon. Friend share a certain incredulity that the Ministry of Justice took three years to resolve the fee that would be paid to commissioners, and that the recruitment exercise appears to be taking 18 months to resolve? What is going on there? Does he believe that the terms of appointment for commissioners should be reviewed to ensure that they can play a greater role in the day-to-day running of the CCRC?

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Food is the means of life, and it must not be used as a weapon of war. The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned its use as morally wrong, but it is also a breach of international humanitarian law. He has condemned as unjustifiable and disproportionate Minister Smotrich’s proposals to cleanse Gaza and displace and destroy all within it. If Mr Smotrich’s plan is carried out in the coming days, does my right hon. Friend agree that he will have to use a different word: genocide? Will he now sanction Minister Smotrich?

• 8 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I spoke with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the progress of the treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—sometimes known as the global ocean treaty. I was assured that, as far as the Department is concerned, the matter had been dealt with and was all done, and I was assured that was also the case with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but when I spoke to colleagues from the Cabinet Office, they had not heard of it. The Leader of the House will know that the United Nations ocean conference will take place next month, and it is really important that we get ratification of that treaty for the conference. The world is looking at us, and if we want to take leadership on this issue, we need to act.

• 8 May 2025 · Environmental Audit Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to speak in support of the Committee’s report, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on the way in which he has led the Committee and on how he took up the remnant of this report from the last Parliament as the first report for our Committee in the new Parliament. He is right to recognise that natural capital is the foundation of our economy. With the spending review next month, does he agree that the Government should set out precisely how they have taken a natural capital approach to the evaluation of spending decisions? Does he agree that the new national wealth fund should be empowered to invest in the natural capital project, as highlighted in our report?

• 6 May 2025 · Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that a number of Iranian citizens in this country still have relatives in Iran, and it is not beyond the wit of the Iranian Government to use that pressure on them. In requiring the citizens of Iran in this country to report to our Government if they are in any way connected to the Iranian Government, has he taken measures to protect them from exposing their family to the pressure that the Iranian Government may put on them?

• 6 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Last week I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry when they came here with my old friend Piyush Goyal. I congratulate the Minister and his officials, as well as FICCI and the India Global Forum—under the leadership of Manoj Ladwa—and, indeed, everyone who has spent so many years laying the groundwork for this agreement. The Minister recognised the doubling of India’s service and IT exports over the last decade and the benefits that we can gain from engagement and co-operation in respect of the service and knowledge economy, but I think it important for him to outline further what the benefits of the double contribution convention on national insurance will be, and how they will facilitate that engagement and co-operation for our workers in India.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Energy resilience comes from a secure supply of clean and cheap energy. The major cause of the financial crises that the world has experienced over the last 40 years is the insecurity of supply of the fossil fuel markets, with Ukraine being just the latest case. As for cheap, the last Government in answer to a parliamentary question admitted that the levelised cost of gas was £114 per megawatt-hour, whereas offshore wind was £44 per megawatt-hour. As for clean, the House may be aware that wind and solar are not known as great emitters of greenhouse gases. So renewables are clean, cheap and secure. Renewables and resilience go together.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Global Deforestation · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Minister runs down the clock, I just want to say that it is clear from Members across the House that we will not accept any further delay to the due diligence regulations, and that they must be placed not just— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 30 Apr 2025 · Global Deforestation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government policies to limit global deforestation. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Mr Vickers. I know how important these matters are to your constituents in Brigg and Immingham, as they are to mine in Brent West. It may seem strange to start a debate on policies to combat deforestation by speaking about rivers, but I want to pose a challenge to colleagues this morning, to see whether any of them can name the largest river on the planet. I will happily give way to anyone who thinks they can.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Global Deforestation · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister could clarify whether indigenous communities are represented on the board of the Cali fund, that would be really helpful.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Global Deforestation · Hansard source

  More

  No, it is not the Plate. It is not the River Nile, and it is not the Amazon, but if anyone thought it was the Amazon, they are getting close. The river I am speaking of is actually, for the most part, invisible and airborne. Every day, 20 billion cubic metres of water—that is 20 billion metric tonnes of water—is pushed up into the atmosphere by the forests of the Amazon basin. That water does not stay in the atmosphere; it is not like evaporation from the oceans. It is generated by a unique combination of the organic forest interacting with the inorganic atmosphere. It is seeded with microscopic spores of pollen and fungi. These make the Amazonian clouds heavy, which means that all that water rains back down across the continent, replenishing the forest and irrigating a land mass that otherwise would probably be a desert. The Amazon river as we know it—all 4,000 miles of it—pours just 17 billion tonnes of water into the Atlantic ocean every day, so the invisible river of transpiration beats it by 3 billion tonnes a day. Imagine the power it takes to push 20 billion tonnes up into the atmosphere. On Brazil’s border with Paraguay is the Itaipu dam, the second most powerful hydroelectric power station in the world after the Three Gorges dam in China. Itaipu’s capacity is 14 MW. That is about four and a half times the capacity of Hinkley Point C, if Hinkley ever manages to get built. We would need 5,000 Itaipu power stations to push the 20 billion tonnes of water up into the atmosphere that that forest does every single day. Forests are amazing. The Amazon is not alone, of course. The second lung of our planet is the Congo basin in Africa, and while we are talking about famous dams, it is worth noting that the Aswan dam, some 2,000 miles away, relies for 85% of its power on water that the Congo forest transpiration has deposited into the Ethiopian highlands, coming down through the Nile to Aswan. Forests are amazing, or, to be a little more scientific about it, forest ecosystems provide critical and diverse services to human society. They are a primary habitat for a wide range of species. They support biodiversity and conservation. Forest growth sequesters and stores carbon from the atmosphere. It contributes to regulation of the global carbon cycle and mitigates climate change. Healthy forests produce soil and conserve it. They stabilise stream flows and water run-off, preventing land degradation and desertification. Forests reduce the risks of natural disasters such as droughts, floods and landslides. They contribute to poverty eradication and to economic development by providing food, fibre, timber and other forest products for subsistence and income generation. They are a key genetic source for the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to global human health, and they even serve as sites of aesthetic, recreational and spiritual values in so many cultures. Forests may be home to 80% of land species, but they are also vital to the survival of our own. They produce 40% of the oxygen we breathe, support 1.6 billion livelihoods and play a crucial role in holding back a climate disaster on a massive scale. What about deforestation? That has been happening for a long time. In fact, since the end of the last ice age, the world has lost one third of all its forests—that is about 2 billion hectares, or two United States of Americas. But even though it has been happening for about 11,000 years, the rate of acceleration is rather recent and incredibly alarming. More than half of all the forest lost since the Pleistocene has gone in the last 125 years—1.1 billion hectares gone. The drivers of deforestation are well known. Agricultural expansion remains the single largest cause, and according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, is responsible for 88% of global deforestation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that it contributes 11% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Similarly, in its report on deforestation in January last year, the Environmental Audit Committee identified what we might call the seven deadly sins of deforestation—the seven commodities that are driving 90% of global deforestation: beef and leather, soy, timber, palm oil, paper, rubber and cocoa. However, the EAC was only picking up on the Global Resource Initiative taskforce’s recommendations from 2020. I commend the previous Conservative Government for establishing the GRI taskforce under the chairmanship of Sir Ian Cheshire as part of the 25-year environment plan. Sir Ian realised that if the market was to transition to sustainable commodity supply chains, it would need Government to adopt a strategic, co-ordinated approach to align and accelerate action. The Government’s response to the taskforce’s 14 recommendations showed real understanding of the issues. They said: “When nature’s free services fail, the poorest people suffer first and worst. Over a billion people rely directly on forests for their livelihoods—including indigenous peoples who look after around 80% of biodiversity.” They continued: “Protecting and restoring mangroves, forests, and peatlands could provide around a third of the most cost-effective climate change solutions we need, while supporting species and helping communities adapt to become more resilient. Shifting towards more sustainable forms of agriculture would not only protect the planet’s lungs, but it could add a further $2.3trn in productive growth to the global economy and create a further 200 million jobs by 2050…We know that there is no pathway to Net Zero emissions—or indeed the Sustainable Development Goals—that does not involve protecting and restoring nature on an unprecedented scale. But despite the huge contribution nature can make, it attracts just 3% of global climate finance.” I suspect that the excellence of that written response is directly attributable to the noble Lord Goldsmith. But an excellence of understanding requires an excellence of follow-through, and that was less excellent. It is true that in response to the taskforce’s recommendation to mobilise “a global call for action to tackle deforestation and build sustainable commodity supply chains in the lead up to COP26”, the Johnson Government did deliver a call to action—but a call to action and action are two different things. Yes, more than 100 global leaders signed up to the pledge to halt deforestation by 2030, and, yes, 30 financial institutions, managing nearly $9 trillion in assets between them, promised to disclose the “deforestation risk and mitigation activities in their portfolios” by 2023, and to eliminate harmful practices from their portfolios by 2025. But ’23 has come and gone. Today it is 2025, and we are still not eating the “guilt free chocolate…that’s carbon not calorie guilt free”, that Boris Johnson boasted about. We are nowhere near on track to halting forest loss by 2030. One of the things that fuels people’s disillusionment with politics is that so much fanfare surrounds policy announcements, but so little of the hard graft of delivery gets done after the announcements have been made. The public understand that our diets and supply chains are deeply entwined with this issue. We may not see the bulldozers or the farmers who are eking out a living with slash and burn, but the products we consume every day, from chocolate bars to cooking oils, link us directly to the deforestation that we say we want to stop. If we told the public that we had just destroyed the entire New Forest, they would be horrified, yet that is the area of forest that our failure to enact the due diligence recommendations has eradicated since 2021. With that knowledge comes the understanding that we are complicit. But there is only so much that people can do through their individual action and choices. That is why the taskforce’s recommendations about a due diligence obligation were so important. It said that the Government should “urgently” introduce “a mandatory due diligence obligation for companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation on the UK market”, and that they should take action to ensure that similar principles are applied to the finance industry. That due diligence obligation would require companies to analyse the presence of environmental and human rights risks and impacts within their supply chains, take action to prevent or mitigate them, and publicly report on actions taken and planned. The financial sector would also be covered by a similar mandatory due diligence obligation, requiring it to exercise due diligence to ensure that its lending and investments do not fund deforestation. The taskforce demanded action, and in the Environment Act 2021 it got a pale version of it. The Act introduced measures to prohibit UK businesses from using commodities grown on illegally deforested or occupied land. At the COP28 summit in Dubai in 2023, the UK delegation announced the list of commodities that could be included in environmental law and explained that businesses with more than £50 million in global annual turnover that use more than 500 metric tonnes of commodities a year would need to source from land they could prove was not illegally deforested. Although well intentioned, by focusing on legality, the Act failed to hold out an absolute standard of whether the supply chain was in fact involved in deforestation. It ignored the fact that politicians such as Jair Bolsonaro would simply change their domestic legislation to grant legal status to what had previously been illegally deforested land, and so get round the Act’s intention. The failure to impose adequate due diligence on companies, banks and finance houses and institutions has meant that, since the Glasgow declaration, UK banks have provided more than £1 billion to companies that present a forest risk. Last July, UK investors still held £1.4 billion-worth of assets and shares issued by these companies. The largest 50 of those investors make up 99% of the total UK forest-risk investments, yet 18 of them were actually signatories to the net zero asset managers initiative. Sadly, just eight have made any clear public commitment to eventually removing deforestation from their portfolios. That leaves 42 that should be ashamed of themselves. Three names stand out, but for all the wrong reasons: HSBC, Barclays and Standard Chartered. Between them, those three banks have provided 97% of the £4.5 billion-worth of credit lines for forest-risk companies since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015. It is not just in government where there is a gap between policy and action. In 2017, HSBC committed “not to provide services to customers either directly or indirectly involved in deforestation”. In fact, it has provided credit lines amounting to £1.9 billion to forest-risk companies such as JBS, the world’s largest meat company, which, despite a record of corruption and forest destruction, just last week was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission to list on the New York stock exchange, giving it access to new sources of finance and capital markets. It is, of course, just a few months since JBS dropped its net zero by 2040 climate pledge, claiming, “Well, it was never a formal commitment.” The Environment Act was an important marker that the UK takes seriously its role in the global supply chain, and that it wants to lead the way and manage the responsibility that comes with it. But a marker only stands in place of action for so long. Four years later, it has become an ironic sign of failure. UK financial institutions continue to bankroll deforestation. Trade agreements lack meaningful environmental safeguards, and indigenous land defenders face daily violence and intimidation. Unsustainable logging fuels forest destruction; weak governance and corruption continue; and infrastructure projects and mining operations further encroach on forested lands, fragmenting ecosystems and threatening indigenous territories. Land tenure insecurity, poor enforcement and a lack of economic alternatives all conspire to make deforestation a systemic problem. There can be no one silver bullet but, my goodness, there must be a desire to start. With COP30 this November being hosted in Brazil, there is a compelling case to move from intention to delivery. First, the Minister knows only too well that we must urgently expand the due diligence regime to cover all forest-risk commodities, whether legal or illegal, under producer country law. We should introduce criminal liability for companies knowingly profiting from deforestation, and require UK banks and investors to disclose their deforestation risk. There will need to be a phased timeline, but my question is not when it will be done but why it has not been done already. If we understand where the blockage in the machinery is, perhaps we can help apply a bit of pressure to assist the Minister in getting it done. I know she will be keen to do so. Some say the blockage is in the Cabinet Office, some say Northern Ireland and the Windsor framework. I would point out to the Minister and her ministerial colleagues that the strong due diligence measures of the European deforestation legislation are due to come into force in December this year. It would be best if the regulation of the whole of the UK were consonant with that. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for the full implementation of schedule 17 to the Environment Act? Secondly, the UK must champion a trade model that values environmental protection and human rights. As the UK is in advanced trade negotiations with the EU and India, and to a lesser extent with the USA, what discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade about the need to embed deforestation safeguards and environmental standards in all future trade agreements? I immodestly recommend to her the blueprint set out in the Labour party’s green paper of 2018, entitled, “Just Trading: What would a just trading system look like?”, when I was shadow Trade Secretary. Thirdly, the tropical forests forever facility—TFFF—championed by Brazil, will inevitably assume centre stage as we progress towards Belém and COP30. By using arbitrage between the cost of long-dated Government bonds and loans and the returns of a more diversified portfolio, the TFFF fund seeks to provide a long-term payment for conservation and restoration of tropical forests. The facility would help to address a significant market failure, placing a value to the ecosystem services that those forests provide, and returning that to the forest communities that curate them. Will the Minister tell us how the UK will be involved in the TFFF? What conversations has she had with colleagues in international development? How will the fund prioritise and reward the role of indigenous and traditional knowledge partners in forest stewardship? She knows that indigenous peoples need specific legal protections, recognition and direct funding. Forests thrive when indigenous rights are upheld. Our aid and climate finance must prioritise those locally led solutions. That is fundamental, not just for nature and climate mitigation, but for justice, for addressing poverty and for human rights. The establishment at the convention on biological diversity COP16 meeting in Rome of the Cali fund, which commits 50% of its resources to indigenous communities, was an overdue recognition of their role as custodians of forests and the nature and biodiversity that make them. I ask the Minister to update the House about the steps our Government are taking to help operationalise that fund, and to ensure that its resources reach those local communities quickly and without loss. Can she tell us whether and how indigenous communities are represented on the fund’s board of management, and how the Cali fund will work alongside the TFFF? Is the UK planning to invest in the TFFF, and now with the 40% cut in official development assistance from 0.5% to just 0.3% of GNI, what will happen to the £11.6 billion that was ringfenced for climate in ICF3, and the £3 billion within that that was further ringfenced for nature? After years of declining indicators, we now have an opportunity to reverse the trend of deforestation. I am proud of the direction that our Labour Government have taken since July, from creating a special envoy for nature to committing to deliver three new national forests. Domestically, the Government are investing up to £400 million in tree planting and peatland restoration over 2024-25 and 2025-26. However, if we are to lead globally we must also act globally, and that includes how we mobilise capital. Public funding is crucial, but on its own it is not enough. We need to unlock private finance to support conservation and sustainable development, especially in regions safeguarding the planet’s remaining great forests, and that means scaling up tools such as green bonds, blended finance and debt-for-nature swaps. The City of London can and should be a hub for that kind of innovation, not only for climate finance, but for nature-positive finance. We sometimes hear the environment and the economy pitted against each other, as if nature is a subset of the economy. Of course the truth is the other way round, because without nature and the ecosystem services that it provides, there is no economy, and the most vital part of that nature is our amazing forests.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Kashmir: Increasing Tension · Hansard source

  More

  We have seen the Kargil incursion, the Chittisinghpura attack, the hijacking of Air India Flight 814, the attack on Gandhinagar, the attack on the Lok Sabah itself, the attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai and the suicide bomb attack at Pulwama that killed 44 people, and now 26 tourists have been murdered at Pahalgam. That is just a short list of the activities of Pakistan-based terror organisations such as Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and its derivatives, including The Resistance Front, that have taken place since you and I were first elected to the House, Mr Speaker. They destabilise international security between two nuclear states, and cause unwarranted tension in community relations here. Is it not time to make the support that we give to Pakistan conditional on its finally dealing with and closing down the terrorist training camps that it harbours?

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  The taxation regime is critical to the ability of companies to make profits in the North sea. We have the lowest base rate of tax on oil and gas production companies in the world, and it is only because we have the windfall tax that we take the rate up to the average. The Minister needs to look at the investment that would be available were we not subsidising the operations from the public purse. It is not quite the zero-sum game that he suggests.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady speaks about the way in which other countries have ended their windfall tax, but does she accept that the basic rate of tax that was being applied by the previous Government to the oil and gas industry in the North sea was the lowest in the world, and that it is only with the windfall tax that it comes up to the global average?

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister believe that investors do not know that it is a declining field?

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Lady’s remarks. Does she agree that one way in which Britain could help ensure that the transition is not only just, but orderly and managed, would be to do what countries such as Denmark have done—join the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance?