Helen Maguire MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady brilliantly describes the real nub of the problem. One of my constituents got in touch to tell me that in the space of a few months, four people that she knew received a brain tumour diagnosis. With symptoms ranging from seizures to changes in behaviour, the diagnosis process for brain tumours can be dramatic, lengthy and hard fought. That is why we urgently need improvements in diagnosis. The national cancer plan aims to make great strides in speeding up diagnosis, but I was disappointed that the Government did not take up the Liberal Democrats’ calls for 8,000 more GPs, to ensure that everyone can get seen quickly and be referred for treatment. Once a referral is successful, the brain tumour should be treated. To see delays because of equipment shortages is a disgrace. The Government have pledged funding for 28 new radiotherapy machines, which is a step in the right direction, but the Liberal Democrats have long called for 200 new, fully staffed machines, so that we can end radiotherapy deserts and stop delays to vital treatment. Will the Minister set out when we can expect funding for more machines? Brain cancer has a more complex element; it does not occur in stages like other cancers, but is defined by grades. The grading system can also differ, depending on the type of brain tumour that the patient has. The national cancer plan has looked to offer some relief to patients by giving a commitment that a clinical nurse specialist or other named lead will support them through diagnosis and treatment to hopefully make the path clearer. I look forward to seeing how the Government intend to support this ambition by providing enough staff through the 10-year workforce plan. While we are waiting for that plan, will the Minister give some clarity on how he plans to implement the commitment to providing 5,000 learning and training opportunities per year for the first three years of the plan for people in cancer-critical roles? It is important that I mention benign brain tumours. Just because they are not cancerous, it does not mean that people do not experience a life-changing impact from being diagnosed with them. Those living with benign brain tumours must also receive the right treatment, care and lifelong support. I really hope that we are at a turning point in cancer care, especially for brain tumours, which kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer. I am pleased to see many organisations, including Brain Tumour Research, welcome the national cancer plan, especially the proposed access to clinical trials and increased research. There is a lot of ambition in the plan that must be accounted for, so will the Minister confirm that the annual summary of progress for the national cancer plan will be presented in the House every year for proper scrutiny?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for her personal experience that has gone into this plan. After the Conservatives failed to invest in our NHS, it is no surprise that cancer survival in the UK is still around 10 to 15 years behind leading countries, with worse survival rates for some cancers than Romania and Poland. I am therefore pleased that this Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and brought this national cancer plan to life, because cancer touches everyone. One of my residents, a mum with a young family, discovered a lump in her breast. Despite attending the one stop breast clinic on four separate occasions, it took two horrendous years for her to be diagnosed with breast cancer. When she was finally diagnosed, the cancer was aggressive and required a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. That is why I welcome the Government’s target on meeting all cancer wait time standards by 2029, but the aim to halve the backlog in three years’ time is not ambitious enough. Will the Minister go further and back a Liberal Democrat plan to write into law a guarantee for all cancer patients to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral? The focus on ending delays in cancer care is a step forward, but funding 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough when the treatment is so cost effective and successful. We need to end radiotherapy deserts, so will the Minister extend her ambition to 200 extra radiotherapy machines? The Minister says that the plan will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care, but how will she support older people and the digitally excluded? The plan promises to drive up productivity, end the postcode lottery, expand NHS diagnostic capacity, introduce personalised cancer plans and more. That is optimistic and will require more investment to increase NHS capacity, but without clear funding and capacity building plans, is it realistic? Labour was right to put patients at the heart of this plan and incorporate the Liberal Democrat’s calls for a specialist cancer nurse for every patient. We costed for 3,000 extra cancer nurses; how many additional cancer nurses does the Minister believe are needed? Finally, will the Minister confirm that the plan’s annual summary of progress will be reported in the House for Members to scrutinise?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the night-time economy is on the rise in Epsom, and although I have not sampled the new Labyrinth nightclub I have been to many restaurants and pubs with local residents. The thriving night-time economy contributes to our high streets but, as the hon. Member mentioned, they must be safe. Does he agree that, even at night time, a visible, trusted police presence deters crime?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents have got in touch about a significant fare increase that they are experiencing with Southern Railway. The Leatherhead to London Victoria single fare at 8.51 am has increased 39.4% from £12.70 to £17.70. That is because of the introduction of contactless by Transport for London, who determine prices for peak and off-peak trains differently. Does my hon Friend agree that such discrepancy over pricing erodes confidence in our railways and undermines Labour’s plans to make rail more affordable?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the MOJ is responsible for granting exhumation licences, does the Secretary of State agree that significant historical pauper burial sites, such Horton cemetery in my constituency, require stronger safeguards, and will he meet me to discuss how licensing decisions can better protect them?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents is incredibly distressed: they are a dependant of a local business owner and they contacted me about the European Community association agreement route. They are concerned that the proposed earned settlement skilled worker metrics cannot be applied to ECAA entrepreneurs, who must demonstrate a genuine business rather than meet salary thresholds. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to indefinite leave to remain must properly consider those on the ECAA route, and any other specific routes?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate. Private investment is the lifeblood of our defence industry—now more than ever. In an era defined by geopolitical volatility, from Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine to the unpredictable actions of global leaders, defence preparedness must be at the heart of the Government’s agenda. The landscape is shifting. World leaders are recalibrating their strategies, and the private sector is doing the same. ESG-focused funds are increasingly recognising the strategic and ethical imperative of investing in defence. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, exposure of ESG European equity funds to aerospace and defence has surged by a factor of 2.7. That is not an anomaly; it is a trend. There is often confusion from some stakeholders who claim that ESG rules exclude defence companies from sustainable finance, but ESG disclosure and labelling rules do not require defence exclusion. Let me be clear: ESG rules do not exclude defence companies. The confusion is misplaced. Many sustainable funds invest in defence, and those that exclude it typically do so for voluntary ethical reasons or because of reputational concerns, not because ESG rules mandate it. I am pleased that the Government have been clear that they agree there is nothing contradictory between ESG considerations and defence. This position is shared by the Liberal Democrats, who see the industry’s broader structural problems, such as political uncertainty over defence procurement, long production cycles, export controls and delays in Government payments, as the much bigger issue. Having met many defence companies, including SMEs, I have heard how they are lacking long-term certainty, making it difficult to invest in capacity, innovation and workforce development. Take Labour’s recent indecision on the new medium helicopter contract, which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) recently alluded to. Delays risk jobs and investment. Meanwhile, the defence investment plan remains unseen. Will the Minister confirm when the plan will be published? Defence companies, especially SMEs, need certainty. They need to invest in capacity, innovation and their workforce. The war in Ukraine has shown what is possible when industry and Government work together at pace. Yet our current system is failing them. Will the Minister commit to replacing rigid defence reviews with a flexible, continuous assessment of security threats? As part of this, the Government must look to improve collaboration with European and NATO partners to develop new technologies, equipment and training, including via the northern group. Will the Minister therefore give us an update on the UK’s access to the Security Action for Europe fund? Prioritising interoperability with NATO allies and other strategic partners means that we can support each other during peace and war; in times like these, that is paramount. SMEs are the backbone of the UK defence industry, providing flexibility, innovation and supporting high quality jobs across the UK. However, they face unique challenges that limit their potential to contribute fully to defence capability and UK prosperity. They receive just 5% of the procurement budget, with 42% of contracts going to the same 10 suppliers. That is not just unfair; it is short-sighted, so will the Minister update us on the defence office for small business growth? We know that the previous Conservative Government bungled defence procurement in our country, overseeing budget overruns and insufficient equipment supplies. It is time for a concerted effort to get behind the defence industry. That means no more delays to vital contracts, and timely and relevant investment plans. That is why the Liberal Democrats will partner with industry to provide the confidence to boost private sector investment in research and development, training and facilities, securing key skills and employment opportunities and ensuring that the economic benefits build the prosperity of UK regions. To incentivise defence spending, we have also shared our plans for war bonds. Members of the public could loan the Government money in the form of a bond that would run over a period of two to three years and pay out the same interest as standard Government bonds. The bonds could raise up to £20 billion for the military, and would give the public a chance to support our defence patriotically, so has the Minister reviewed those proposals and will she set up a meeting to discuss it in more detail? The world is changing rapidly. We can no longer rely on old certainties, and thanks to Donald Trump, we can no longer depend on our closest allies. The UK’s defence industry must come first. Will the Minister stand with defence businesses of all sizes and private investors and commit to making the UK a global leader in defence, innovation and resilience?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. This is about safeguarding the public. There are many other examples of doctors having similar abilities to use this information.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree, and I will be coming on to that further in my speech. Let me be clear that this debate is in no way about firearm ownership—the Government are consulting on that separately, and that is its own debate. Today’s discussion is about how we can ensure that medical professionals have the information required to best support the individuals they serve. Emma and her daughter Lettie Pattison, who lived in my constituency, were shot and killed by Emma’s husband almost three years ago, before he turned the gun on himself. Before his latest shotgun licence renewal, George Pattison had used an online doctor to receive a “significant amount” of propranolol between 2019 and 2021. However, despite his change in mental health, the online doctor was unaware of his firearms licence, and the medication was not disclosed to his GP, which meant that neither professional was able to intervene. If they had, maybe Emma would still be working at Epsom college and Lettie might have celebrated her 10th birthday this year. Robert Needham killed his partner Kelly Fitzgibbons, and their children Ava, age four, and Lexi, age two, in West Sussex in 2020. In Needham’s case, as a result of changes to gun licence guidelines, a flag was initially inputted and then removed. A statement from Kelly’s family following the inquest into their deaths described the monitoring and sharing of information between police and medical professionals about Needham’s shotgun licence as a “shambles.” Having corresponded with medical organisations, I recognise that balancing the need for patient-doctor confidentiality is paramount. In the first instance, the GP should always ask for the individual’s consent before contacting another authority, such as the police, about how the issues they are facing may impact their ability to safely possess a gun. However, doctors can break confidentiality when it is in the public interest. According to the British Medical Association, public interest is likely to be justified where it is essential to protect other people from risks of serious harm or death. GPs also must already abide by several safeguarding protocols and laws. The Care Act 2014 sets out six key principles of safeguarding, including prevention, noting that it is sometimes possible to act before harm has come to an individual. With those existing guidelines, mandatory markers are not an attempt to reinvent the wheel; they are simply a way of flagging vital information that is key to the patients and public safety. The Royal College of General Practitioners considers it valuable to have those digital markers in place, and notes that software systems should develop, implement and secure the functionality of the markers in patient records. The college recommends that the Government work with the providers of GP systems to resolve this issue. The BMA also supports medical markers. They told me that doctors have a professional responsibility to share information that might impact on the safety of someone holding firearms in the community, and we need effective systems to do so. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office welcomes the digital medical marker and recognises the work of bereaved families who have lobbied tirelessly to ensure that action is taken to prevent future harm and further loss of life. The British Association for Shooting Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, who have a combined membership of over 200,000 people, both support the introduction of mandatory medical markers. June 2010, March 2020, August 2021, February 2023—these dates are etched in the memories of families torn apart by gun violence: each one a failure of the system; each one a life that could have been saved. The Government have a choice: they can listen to the families of victims, to medical professionals, gun owners and the organisations working to end violence, or they can continue to leave the door open to tragedy. The Liberal Democrats believe that mandatory medical markers are a proportionate evidence-based safeguard. They allow concerns to be flagged early if someone’s health changes, rather than waiting years until a licence renewal, and can save lives. So I ask the Minister today: will he finally release the data on how many GPs are using the markers and will he commit today to making them mandatory?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting to hear that there is another system in Northern Ireland, and indeed, I urge the Minister to look at that and see whether it could be applicable here.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms McVey, and have the opportunity to raise such a critical issue. In 2021, three-year-old Sophie Martyn was one of six people in Plymouth who lost their lives in a mass killing. At the inquest it emerged that the murderer’s GP had not placed a marker on the medical notes when requested to do so by the police. The murderer had already had his gun taken away previously and concerns about his health had been reported by his mother, who was the first person killed. When it mattered most, the system failed. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Almost a year after the anniversary of those horrific killings, the previous Government rolled out medical markers for new firearms licence holders. Medical markers, once applied to a patient’s record, flag that an individual has a firearms licence and automatically alerts doctors if there has been a relevant change in their medical situation. That could include a change in their mental health or evidence of substance abuse. That allows the GP to have a conversation with the patient and, if necessary, inform the police. Here is the catch: those markers are not mandatory. There is currently no obligation on GPs to use the marker. Their use is left to the best endeavours of GPs. I have written to the Minister for crime, policing and fire to ask for the number of GPs who have downloaded the marker, but I have yet to receive a response. That is a missed opportunity to save lives, to safeguard vulnerable adults with access to firearms, and to protect public safety. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of a change of health that could impact a certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Why are the Government dragging their feet? In 2008, Christopher Foster shot his wife and teenage daughter. He then shot the family animals and burned his house down, dying of smoke inhalation. He had previously seen his GP on several occasions to discuss his depression and suicidal thoughts. Markers on medical notes for firearms owners were not then available, and there was no way that his GP could have known that he had licensed firearms. With medical markers still being optional, if that horrific attack were carried out today there is still no guarantee that a medical marker would be on his GP record. Our country is home to proud rural communities and individuals who rely on gun ownership for their work. The shooting industry makes up a vital part of the rural economy.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening intently to the Minister, but if he is saying that the number of people who have been referred to their GP with potential conditions and the number of markers are as expected, I cannot understand what difference it would make if the marker were mandatory. It seems as though it is sort of happening already, and if there were no additional cost to making it mandatory, then I struggle to understand why it is difficult for the Government to change their position.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed that the Minister will not be considering making use of the medical marker mandatory. I hope that he will go away and reconsider, particularly because, as many hon. Members have alluded to, there would be no additional cost to doing so. There is a lot of consensus here; making the medical marker mandatory would be common sense and improve public safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) said, it would be a win-win. I thank the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his personal insight and his continued campaigning on the issue, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead for the valuable points that she raised about the rural community. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, there is evidence, and the police agree with the proposal, as do the Countryside Alliance, the BMA, police and crime commissioners and firearms certificate holders. I do not want to be here again talking about another incident. I truly hope the Minister will go away and really consider the matter. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory medical markers for firearm licence holders.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, research by the Royal College of Radiologists found that 76% of English cancer centres had patient safety concerns due to workforce shortages. While we welcome the Government’s recent commitment to ending the postcode lottery of cancer care, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to publish an assessment of the Bill’s impact on doctor numbers, broken down by speciality, to ensure that cancer treatment is not delayed because of staff shortages?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member rightly alluded to, catcalling, being followed or being shouted at by passing cars is a frequent experience for many women who go out running. In my constituency, there are many poorly lit paths and parks, which limits where women feel safe to go out for a run. Does the hon. Lady agree that women should not have to choose between doing the exercise they love and their safety?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Many constituents have contacted me about this important debate, and as a mum of three children, I have seen for myself just how important play is and how much it has helped them to understand teamwork and problem-solving. It is not just me who says that; UNICEF tells us how much it helps resilience, reduces stress and supports emotional wellbeing. Does the hon. Member agree that there are so many ways that play could be integrated into the key stage 1 curriculum as part of education?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the progress made in the Bill on violence against women and girls. Is the Secretary of State aware that there may be a gap in relation to Royal Navy ships? Commanding officers can administer justice for disciplinary offences and some criminal conduct offences through the summary hearing process, where they investigate the allegation and determine whether the accused is guilty. They are potentially carrying out very serious investigations, which could be into things like serious sexual assaults, in the absence of a warrant card holder. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that issue is being addressed? Will he explore the possibility of having investigation-trained military police on those ships, which are often at sea for more than six months?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill requires the provision of further clarification and detail in regard to service justice? If an offence is committed overseas on a base or during an operation, will a person have a choice between a civilian and a military court hearing? If an offence is discovered after six months, will it still be possible to investigate it, and if so, will it be investigated by military police or not?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As it stands, if someone transitions from the regular forces and goes into the reserves, they have to have a separate medical test, even if they are already serving. Does the hon. Member agree that that area perhaps needs some work?

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech that has affected us all. In November 2025, NHS Surrey Heartlands integrated care board in my constituency paused assessments on the Right to Choose pathway until April 2026, which has caused major disruption. My constituent’s daughter does not know when she will be seen or if she will be seen at all. I have talked to the ICB and I know that there has been a massive increase in referrals for ADHD, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must set out plans to improve local NHS provision of ADHD assessments?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this vital debate. In November 2025, Surrey police recorded 45 incidents of domestic abuse in my constituency, an average of 1.5 incidents every day. Let us be clear, those are not just statistics. Those numbers represent real people: mothers, daughters, sisters and children, experiencing some of the most harrowing abuses imaginable. I have met local organisations such as North Surrey Domestic Abuse Service, the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Guildford and East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services to understand the support available to survivors. What I learned is deeply troubling. The overwhelming number of women whose lives have been shattered by domestic abuse is staggering. Many victims face financial hardship, debt and isolation. Children grow up in fear, forced to endure violence in silence, their innocence stolen. Yet for some escape never comes. Gemma Devonish, a much-loved teacher at a local girls’ school in Epsom, was found with 54 stab wounds in her home in December 2024. Her boyfriend was due to stand trial for her murder but justice remains delayed, as the trial is yet to begin. Aliny Godinho, a mother of four, was stabbed to death by her estranged husband in front of her three-year-old daughter while picking up her children from school in Ewell. Despite emergency accommodation having been arranged for Aliny in Streatham, her children remained at a school in Surrey. An examination of her husband’s computer revealed that he tracked her phone, accessed her emails and knew her new secret address. Those tragedies are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of systemic failure. Recorded incidents are only the tip of the iceberg, because less than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police. The NHS, however, has more contact with victims and perpetrators than any other agency. That places healthcare professionals on the frontline of the domestic abuse epidemic, not just for identifying and supporting victims but for monitoring potential abusers. Let us consider the case of Emma Pattison, the beloved headteacher at Epsom college, and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie. Both were shot and murdered by Emma’s husband and Lettie’s father, George Pattison. George legally owned a shotgun and held a valid licence. Before his last licence renewal, which requires a letter from a GP, he used an online consultation service to obtain antidepressants. The online doctor had access to his medical records but they were unaware that he held a gun licence, and the medication was never declared to his GP. If medical professionals are a line of defence against abuse, it is unacceptable for them to be left in the dark about who owns a firearm. Mandatory medical markers would ensure that any health professional with access to a patient’s records could see if the patient held a gun licence. If necessary, the health professional could immediately notify the police. That measure is overwhelmingly supported. A survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 70% of existing certificate holders in England and Wales believe that a marker should be placed on the medical records of gun holders. Among the wider public, support rises to 86%. Will the Minister commit to exploring the benefits of mandatory medical markers with colleagues in the Home Office? The previous Government’s guidance for health professionals states: “Domestic violence and abuse is so prevalent in our society that NHS…staff will be in contact with adult and child victims…across the full range of health services.” Too often, however, staff feel ill equipped to support victims, and training opportunities vary widely across the country. Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at all domestic homicide and abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% had at least one recommendation for health professionals or the health system. Its analysis also revealed that delivering training for healthcare workers at scale could cost as little as £2.66 million per year. Will the Minister review those recommendations and consider including them in the long-delayed workforce plan? I welcome the Government’s announcement of the Steps to Safety initiative, which aims to better equip GP surgeries to identify and respond to domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, any initiative must be grounded in lived experience. The IRIS programme, a specialist domestic abuse training support and referral programme for general practices, has shown remarkable success; practices with IRIS are 30 times more likely to recognise and refer domestic abuse victims to specialist support than those without. Will the Minister review the IRIS programme to ensure that Step to Safety mirrors its success? Finally, it is clear that we are missing a critical opportunity to use the NHS to detect and help victims of abuse earlier. Will the Minister set out a national plan to ensure that NHS staff across the country are sufficiently trained to spot the signs of domestic abuse? For Emma, Lettie, Gemma, Aliny and all other victims of domestic abuse, it is time to tackle this national crisis once and for all.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of people in Epsom and Ewell have signed the petition and emailed in their concerns. As an ex-service member, I absolutely understand how triggering loud noises can be problematic for individuals with PTSD and mental health problems. Indeed, after coming back from Op Telic 4 in Iraq, I found myself in a prone position on Lewisham High Street after fireworks were being set off and it felt like we were under attack. Many constituents have also emailed to say how concerned they are about the impact of loud bangs on animals. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must review the maximum noise limit for fireworks and give a clear timeline to do so?