Mark Sewards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Fathers and Positive Male Role Models · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I should declare that I speak as the dad of two young boys with a third on the way in November, so I have a vested interest when I say: what better way to make sure fathers are as involved as possible, as early on as possible, than to extend paternity and maternity leave? That is why it is so important that when the Government respond to their review into both those things, they extend paternity leave, in particular, to six weeks.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Education and Skills Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Education Committee’s report on further education and skills, published last year, found that technical and vocational pathways were not presented with the “same prominence” as academic routes in schools and colleges. In fact, we had evidence from eight Yorkshire colleges highlighting the “extremely limited” opportunities for under-16s to pursue any creative subjects. How will the reforms correct this, and give parity of esteem to academic and technical routes?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I support the Government’s complete opposition to the expansion of E1, and their opposition to the violent settlers who put the two-state solution genuinely at risk. I just want to press the Foreign Secretary further on his comments about BDS. What further specific details can he give this House that these measures will not be interpreted as support for that movement, or indeed—following on from questions from others—spill over into a de facto ban on other Israeli goods? We know that the BDS movement is supported by people who think that the Jewish people and the Jewish people alone have no right to self-determination.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Unfortunately, I am about to share some statistics that underline that problem even further. I secured a debate on antisemitism on university campuses in this Chamber back in June, and I shared findings from the Union of Jewish Students’ “Time for Change” report, which underlines the seriousness of the issue. One in five students—20%—would be reluctant to, or would never, share a house with a Jewish student. One in four students—this is from all students—did not care very much, or at all, if Jewish people were forced to hide their identity. The figures shocked me then and still shock me now. What is happening on our campuses is sickening. This is about so much more than individual incidents. It tells us something about the environment in which Jewish people are having to live their lives in all spheres, including university campuses. Jewish identity should not be something that any student has to explain or justify, and neither should Jewish students be treated as representatives of the Israeli Government simply because they are Jewish. The UJS has put forward practical recommendations in its report, which I urge the Government to consider seriously: they must be implemented. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the Government might implement those measures, or how they are working across Departments and with universities, the police and Jewish community organisations to ensure a genuinely co-ordinated approach to ensuring that Jewish students are safe on campus. Whether it is a Jewish student on a university campus, a family at a synagogue or a Jewish organisation facing threats from abroad, the principle is the same: British Jews should not have to organise their lives around antisemitism. The British Jewish community is an integral part of our society and national story. They belong here—they always have and always will—and we will always speak up for them.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  Goodness me! I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a disgraceful turn of events when people feel confident enough to say something like that on camera, especially if they are not even intoxicated and inebriated, not that that would justify any comments of that nature. That is sickening and it goes to the heart of what we are trying to get to. Because of the way antisemitism has been allowed to flourish, a lot of people now confidently say such things even on camera. It is disgraceful. We need to think about what it means to belong to a society in which we are repeatedly forced to ask whether it is safe to live openly as a Jewish person. The threat is the threat itself; that is the problem, as is the effect it is having on Jewish people who have to live in anticipation of it. Over the past year, Jewish communities have seen attacks on communal organisations and threats against places of worship and institutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet set out, alongside appalling levels of antisemitic incidents. The significance of that cannot be measured simply by counting the incidents, because it is changing the everyday, ordinary lives of Jewish people in this country. Familiar places and ordinary routines become questions of security. Precautions that might once have seemed extreme, maybe even paranoid, have instead become reasonable considerations that Jewish people have to make as part of their ordinary daily lives. That is why security outside synagogues, schools and community institutions sadly remains all too essential; why Jewish societies at universities do not always publicise where their events will take place; and why celebrating Jewish life in public can require precautions that few other communities in this country ever have to consider.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. That is exactly the sort of behaviour that we have to call out, and it is exactly the sort of behaviour that the Green party is going to have to confront at some point if the party does not want to become infested with the kinds of people we had to deal with in the Labour party between 2015 and 2020. It is important to recognise that the threats facing Jewish people do not exist in neat and separate categories. As we know, online abuse is spilling into the real world. Extremist rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which intimidation becomes normalised, and hostile states will seek to exploit those divisions. The Government’s Protecting What Matters strategy, which was announced back in March, contains important commitments on tackling antisemitism and extremism much more broadly, and obviously I welcome that direction of travel. We now have a new Government and new Ministers in place; it is a test of delivery. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide greater clarity on the timetable for implementing the Protecting What Matters strategy, as there are lots of measures within it, and say how success will be measured. Finally, let me return to the issue I mentioned at the beginning of my speech: antisemitism on university campuses. That is where I first started to become interested in the issue of Israel and Palestine, and the Jewish community in this country.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this important debate. I do not speak today as a member of the Jewish community, or as somebody who can fully understand the experience that many British Jews live with every day, but I have seen a small snapshot of it, from my time at the University of Leeds and throughout my continuing engagement with the Jewish community ever since. At university, I saw some of the challenges faced by Jewish students on campus. More recently, I spoke at the Leeds Leads Against Antisemitism demonstration, where I heard directly from members of the community about the challenges that they are now enduring. It has been a particular issue in recent years, but it is a long-standing problem, as many Members know. I will return to the experience of Jewish students later, because what is happening on our campuses tells us something important about the wider problems we face. The Jewish community in Britain is facing a profound crisis of safety and security. It cannot be said often enough that the first duty of any Government should always be the safety and security of their citizens—we hear it often enough in the Chamber, but it needs to be said again—and that means that the responsibility for protecting the Jewish community cannot rest with the community itself. Nor should Jewish organisations be expected to shoulder the burden alone. The CST is amazing and should of course be well funded, but it cannot fall on the CST to look out for the community every single time. It is the responsibility of us all, and of the Government.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. I will come on to universities in the final part of my speech. The experience of students at the University of Leeds reflects what the hon. Lady said. Security is incredibly important, but our ambition cannot simply be to protect the Jewish people from immediate physical danger. It must also mean being able to live openly and confidently in British society, with a sense of belonging, while being Jewish. That challenge is made even more serious by the actions of hostile states. I welcome the Government’s action on designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the newly reformed National Security Act 2023. Designation must be backed up by vigilance and effective enforcement. Ministers have acknowledged in previous statements that Jewish people, alongside dissidents and journalists, are among those most targeted by the Iranian state and the IRGC in particular. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what further steps are being taken to ensure that hostile states and their proxies cannot intimidate or target British Jewish communal institutions or other organisations in Britain. This is not just some distant foreign policy concern; as we know, we have to live with it every day. Iran has demonstrated its willingness to project threats well beyond its own borders. It also views Jewish communities through the prism of the conflict with Israel, which inevitably creates further concerns for Jewish people here in Britain. Before I come to my point about universities, we have to confront the antisemitism that presents itself as anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Israeli Government is, of course, not inherently antisemitic—of course it is not—but denying Jewish people alone the right to national self-determination, or treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of Israel, is obviously antisemitic. It is anti-Zionist antisemitism and it needs to be called out.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister said in July that the sector needed to be regulated and that this continues to be a priority for his Government?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm that the reforms to judicial review of infrastructure will apply to the West Yorkshire mass transit project? Does she consider that project to be nationally significant infrastructure?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks. However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from. I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation. I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should “more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.” If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge. It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s commitment to regulate the funeral industry was extremely welcome. It was especially welcomed by those families who have been victims of rogue funeral operators, and I commend him for it. They are now asking when regulation will be brought into effect. Is this still a priority for the Prime Minister, and if so, when will the funeral industry finally be regulated?

• 15 Jul 2026 · National Security · Hansard source

  More

  I have 60 minutes to make 60 points—no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak very briefly, as I feel I have already taken enough of the House’s time on this issue. I commend the Government for bringing forward the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 and for designating the IRGC almost as soon as it received Royal Assent. I gently say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers)—who said many things that I agreed with—that while he talks about the length of time it has taken, it was a delivered by a Labour Government, despite all the time that the Conservatives had in office. But that is the only party political point I seek to make in this debate—

• 15 Jul 2026 · National Security · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am not going to take the offer. The IRGC is a direct threat to the safety of the British-Jewish community. We have known that for a long time, and unfortunately the evidence has stacked up as the years have rolled on. We have seen Hatzola ambulances, which served the whole community, not just the Jewish community, set ablaze; we have seen synagogues and community centres firebombed; and we have seen Jewish people stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. It is past time that we designate the IRGC as the threat to this country that it is. I am reminded—especially today of all days, after the Prime Minister’s final Question Time—that it was the Prime Minister who went to the Jewish community in April and made two promises: first, that the legislation would be brought forward in the King’s Speech and prioritised; and secondly, that he would use it to designate the IRGC. I am so pleased that today, after his final Prime Minister’s Question Time, he has fulfilled both promises. I am eternally grateful for the work that the Prime Minister did to transform my party. I think back to 2019 and the worst defeat that we had suffered since 1935 and remember feeling that my party may never come back. But the Prime Minister turned it around, made us face the public, rid us of the poison of antisemitism and delivered the second-biggest majority of my party’s history. As I make the short journey over to the parliamentary Labour party office to nominate my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), in the spirit of unifying behind out next leader, to succeed the Prime Minister—assuming this debate is done by 6 pm— I place on record my thanks to the person who delivered this historic Labour majority, and who is directly responsible for my job and the jobs of many of my colleagues. After all, serving as a Member of Parliament is the greatest privilege in the world, and I will always be grateful to the Prime Minister for that.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Extreme Heat: Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a good speech on the risks associated with extreme heat. I had the good fortune of being a maths teacher in a brand-new school building in 2023 in Leeds. Just before the building opened, the builders showed us around the place, and I asked how the building would be kept cool. They said it is a passive cooling system. I said I was not sure it would hold up in heatwave conditions. They said, “We’ve got this revolutionary new technology, Mr Sewards—you can open the window.” As anybody who has taught or been taught in classrooms during a heatwave knows, opening a window does absolutely nothing for the learning of students. Does the hon. Member agree that it is time for the DFE to consider changing its guidance on new school buildings so that air conditioning is preferred?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I had the pleasure of watching England versus DR Congo with some of the good folks at the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Thankfully, the England men’s team have not taken the title of the campaign too literally, and are still on the hunt to bring at least one trophy home this summer. There should be only one trophy, though, because this party has pledged to end the import of trophies acquired through hunting. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister to update us on progress in this area, so that we can finally end this barbaric practice?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate, and for his comprehensive report on his visit to Gibraltar. His experiences there closely match my own. On that note, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In June last year, I had the pleasure of going to Gibraltar at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar. While I was there, Guy Dumas, an employee of the Government of Gibraltar, showed us around, and he and I got on so well that I ended up recruiting him as my parliamentary assistant. He has provided enormous assistance with my speech for the debate, for which I am very grateful. He is flying back to Gibraltar in just over a week’s time to marry the love of his life, Holly, and I am sure we all wish them well in their marriage. There has been one cloud—the levanter cloud, as it is known in Gibraltar—hanging over the Rock since 2016. As has already been mentioned, Gibraltar did not vote for Brexit; 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, but they have had to deal with the consequences. And rightly so, because they are part of the British family. After a decade of uncertainty since the referendum, a positive future is finally beginning to shine through those clouds. Much of the focus in the lead-up to the agreement was on the key issue of sovereignty, which is completely understandable. Gibraltarians are proudly British. They have reaffirmed that in two referendums, in which 99% voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, as has already been stated, article 2 of the draft agreement says that the agreement is “without prejudice to” the legal positions of the UK and Spain regarding sovereignty over Gibraltar. The House of Commons Library notes that the agreement includes that term and that the Government of Gibraltar have obtained legal opinions confirming that the agreement makes no concessions over the issue of sovereignty. From an entirely legal perspective, an important box has been ticked. I will focus my remarks on a different principle: Gibraltar’s right to self-determination and the democratic will of its people and its elected Government. My visit to Gibraltar last year began with an unexpected detour. As anyone who has visited will know, the mile-long runway, combined with the strong winds across it, means that planes often cannot land and have to take a detour to Málaga. That was my experience, too. That meant I had to enter Gibraltar via the land border, which is a routine experience for everybody living on the Rock and the surrounding area. Thankfully, I did not experience a particularly long queue to cross from Spain into Gibraltar, but I know that is not always the case. There are over 15,000 cross-frontier workers in Gibraltar, and that border is the only land entry point into Gibraltar. Delays of minutes can quickly become hours, and those hours are taken away from time with family or time at work. With this agreement, the routine passport checks that have caused those queues will come to an end. The agreement is intended to ensure that the free circulation of people and goods continues, and it removes those physical barriers at the border. As a Labour MP, I welcome any agreement that improves the lives of working people. During my visit, I met Gibraltarian Government Ministers, the chamber of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. I spoke with businesses, just as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham described, and with many others. At that point, the agreement had not been announced—it was announced a few days later—but they all spoke about the implications of any potential agreement. They also spoke about Gibraltar’s turbulent history, with Spain being a factor. Their feelings were definitely mixed. There was a mix of hope and anxiety, and there was an acceptance of the reality facing them. There was anxiety among the business community about the effects that new tax arrangements might have on their businesses. The controlled border, while frustrating in the way I described, provided a sense of security, and some worried that removing those routine checks could affect crime on what is a very peaceful peninsula. They also acknowledged that the alternative to the agreement is a hard border. Some of the people I spoke to had lived through the closed frontier years of 1969 to 1985. They did not have to imagine what a no-deal outcome would look like, because they had already lived through it, and they were cautioning me and the people I was with against it. What struck me was that there is both a passion for their home and a practical approach to the reality they face. I remember speaking to one of our drivers during the visit. We discussed the agreement, and although he had concerns—the ones I have set out—he was very practical. He told me that he crosses into Spain every single weekend and that if the agreement would make that easier and save him hours of queuing, then he was all for it. Gibraltarians are a thoughtful and politically minded people. I know that because I am pleased to be a member—a secret member—of the “Speak Freely” Facebook group. I hope they do not kick me out after that declaration, especially as I am not a resident of Gibraltar, but it has been wonderful to follow the political discussions. I have no doubt that some of that political awareness comes as a result of years of vigilance with a neighbour that claims sovereignty over their Rock. The visit left me in no doubt that while Westminster scrutiny is absolutely valid and welcome, and while we have to ratify treaties here, it should not override the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. The UK, the EU, Spain and Gibraltar announced the political agreement days after my visit, and the draft agreement was published this February. Gibraltar’s Parliament subsequently passed a motion supporting ratification. Every single one of its 17 Members voted in favour of ratification—that is the kind of consensus we can only dream of in this place. There can be no doubt that the agreement has democratic legitimacy from the Government of Gibraltar. I recognise the desire of Members, who no doubt have the interests of the Gibraltarian people in mind, to scrutinise the agreement to the fullest. The UK has a constitutional duty towards Gibraltar, even though Gibraltar is almost entirely self-governing, but if the agreement commands the support of Gibraltar’s elected Government and every single Member of its Parliament, we must give considerable weight to that democratic judgment. Our Parliament can and should scrutinise, but it should not substitute its own judgment for the democratic will of Gibraltar, particularly when the agreement protects sovereignty and military autonomy. I want to say a word on military autonomy. Gibraltar continues to play a key strategic military role. Defence is one of the United Kingdom’s reserved constitutional responsibilities, so I fully understand why Parliament must carefully scrutinise that aspect of any agreement, but here, too, a very important box has been ticked. The UK military base is not affected by the agreement, and those are not my words; they are the words of the outgoing commander of the British forces in Gibraltar, Commodore Tom Guy, who said that the agreement is positive from a military perspective because it protects the key principle of “military autonomy”, and our armed forces will “continue to operate to, through and from Gibraltar unhindered”. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament before ratification, but the political principle, I hope, is clear: the power to decide Gibraltar’s future should rest with the people of Gibraltar. Our Government and Parliament should respect their wishes. I have only two questions for the Minister, who I know is very highly regarded on the Rock. Can he confirm to the House and to the Gibraltarian people that there will be a legally binding mechanism to ensure that no UK Government will be able to withdraw from the agreement without Gibraltar’s consent? In a similar vein, can he confirm that no future UK Government will be able to block Gibraltar from withdrawing from the agreement if it is the democratically expressed will of the Gibraltarian people? That would be the strongest way to ensure that Gibraltar continues to control its own future. Next week, the levanter cloud over the Rock may finally begin to lift. Gibraltar may feel different, but British sovereignty has been protected, and military autonomy is completely unchanged. Now it should be the Gibraltarians who determine their future in accordance with the principle of self-determination.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about the price reductions for the three countries. By my maths, that is a 70% reduction in the price of sending SMS texts, which is incredibly welcome, although I am not sure who sends those any more. Is he working on similar agreements with other countries not covered by the changes that we are making today?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  Can I place on record my thanks to the pensions recovery taskforce that the Minister deployed? They have been working with my team in my constituency to resolve at least one of my constituents’ cases, so I am grateful for that. I am now being contacted by civil servants who are due to retire but are really worried that they will be swept up in this too. What reassurances can he give them?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Foreign Interference in UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today and the incorporation of the Rycroft review recommendations. I also welcome the changes to the “know your donor” rules, particularly in respect of location; political parties must be forced to include location in their considerations before accepting a donation. I was going to submit that as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, so job done on that. Does the Minister agree that political parties should also be forced to consider politically exposed people and the source of the wealth being donated before accepting donations?

• 6 Jul 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. [ Interruption. ] The Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), is making a strange gesture at me, suggesting that perhaps I do not have 60 minutes in which to contribute. I can reassure her and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intend to speak only very briefly. When I contributed on Second Reading, during the consideration of amendments and on Third Reading, I was convinced by the Government’s argument that the Bill as drafted already contained an exemption that NGOs and humanitarian organisations could take advantage of. I therefore came to the House today keen to listen to the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government accepting these amendments. I also wanted to hear the reasoning from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has contributed throughout the passage of the Bill and had thoughts on why that exemption was not enough. Having listened to the reasoning, I am convinced of the need to accept the amendments—they absolutely make sense—but I have some thoughts and follow-up questions for the Minister, which I will go through now. Lords amendments 1 and 2 are about creating exemptions for humanitarian support, NGOs and the like. They directly affect the part of the Bill that is concerned with assisting designated threats. Assisting a designated state threat should bring with it grave consequences, but at the same time we should not do anything that risks legitimate NGOs stopping their engagement, their involvement and their important work in some of the most difficult regions in the world. It is clear that there needs to be space for them to operate—but, but, but. We know that nefarious state actors will seek to exploit any loophole or advantage to inflict harm on this country. Does the Minister think that amendments 1 and 2 are slightly too loose, or is she confident that designated state threats could not take advantage of the amendments to continue to carry out their actions through other bodies? I have fewer concerns about Lords amendments 3 to 6. It is right that there should be an exemption for humanitarian bodies to share information with designated state threats when that information relates to, say, the clearance of a minefield. That makes sense and, of course, that exemption should exist. One of the reasons I am so keen to accept the amendments and see the Bill receive Royal Assent is that it is absolutely essential that we designate the IRGC as the threat that it is to this country. I am under no illusions about Government policy—no announcement will be made at the Dispatch Box today, and rightly so—but I want to take this opportunity to spell out that the IRGC is a threat to the British Jewish community in the UK. If we do not take action to proscribe it now—or, in this case, designate it now—we are risking the safety of our fellow citizens. Let us accept these amendments, pass this Bill and protect our communities.

• 6 Jul 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 6 Jul 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Hear, hear!