Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Our deepest condolences are with the families and friends of the two young people who have died following the outbreak of meningitis B in Kent. Others are seriously ill, and this will be a deeply difficult time for their loved ones. Health experts are working to identify close contacts and distribute antibiotics, and we will begin a targeted vaccination programme in the coming days. Can I take this opportunity to ask anyone who attended Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March to please come forward to receive antibiotics?

Yesterday President Zelensky addressed parliamentarians, including many Members. I had the opportunity to reaffirm to him that no matter what other international events, the UK’s support for Ukraine will not waver. I also welcomed Prime Minister Carney and NATO Secretary-General Rutte to Downing Street for further discussions on international security.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Wendy Morton]

May I associate myself with the comments and condolences of the Prime Minister in relation to those affected by the meningitis outbreak?

New data today shows that nearly 60% of hospices are considering cutting frontline services. In the west midlands, St Giles hospice has already reduced beds and staff due to financial pressures. With services being cut, can the Prime Minister explain why hospices are being told to wait until autumn for the new framework, and will he commit today to proper long-term, sustainable funding to secure this vital lifeline for the future?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that the funding and framework are put in place. We support the work of hospices and are doing everything we can to support them.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Q3. My constituent Caroline from Grenoside told me that since December the cost of her heating oil has nearly tripled, from £257 to £700. Local farmers I met last week also raised their concerns that the oil industry has not been properly regulated, disadvantaging off-grid customers. While I welcome the Government’s £53 million support package for rural communities, will the Prime Minister confirm how disabled people, vulnerable people and low-income households can access this support, and how he will improve regulation of oil to bring down the cost of energy bills?

[The Prime Minister]

My first instinct is always to protect people from the cost of living. The immediate action we have taken in relation to those who heat their homes with oil is the £53 million that we announced this week. That is particularly important for rural communities and for Northern Ireland. De-escalation in the middle east is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living. Anyone who advocated for the UK to rush headlong into the offensive without a clear picture of what it would mean for our forces or without thinking through the economic impact for families should stand up and apologise.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister’s questions last week, so let me ask him now: did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start where I must. It was my mistake in making the appointment. I have apologised to the victims of Epstein, and I do so again. The Government are complying with the Humble Address in full, and we are continuing to support the police in their investigation. The matter of process was looked at by the independent adviser on ministerial standards. It is clear that the appointment process was not strong enough, and that is why I have already strengthened it. It was my mistake, and I have apologised for it. The right hon. Lady should follow suit and apologise for her gross error of judgment in calling for the UK to join the war in Iran without thinking through the consequences.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the documents that he tried to bury last week. He is going to try to talk about anything else, but he is not going to get away with it. I asked him a question; he did not answer.

We know that the Prime Minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson. This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution—he knew that. So I will ask him again: did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that before the appointment? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already made clear that Peter Mandelson was asked questions and gave untruthful replies. The Government are complying with the Humble Address. The process has been set out. The independent adviser looked at it, and he said,

“the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”.

Obviously, this is a question of my judgment, but what about the Leader of the Opposition’s judgment? She wanted to rush into a war with Iran without thinking it through. At the weekend—three weeks in—she said, “Oh, there isn’t a clear plan behind the US strikes in Iran.” That is the question she should have asked at the start. The decision to commit the UK to a war is the biggest decision a Prime Minister can take, and she was completely wrong.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I did not hear an answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is right: it is about his judgment. He has repeatedly told us that Peter Mandelson lied to him, but he will not tell us if he actually picked up the phone and spoke to Mandelson before appointing him. That does not make any sense. The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?

[The Prime Minister]

The process is clear, and it has been looked at by the independent adviser. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the process and judgment on appointments, but she appointed the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who said last night that Muslims praying in public—including the Mayor of London, practising his faith—are not welcome. He described it as an

“act of domination…straight from the Islamist playbook.”

It is utterly appalling. If he were in my team, he would be gone. The Leader of the Opposition should denounce his comments, and she should sack him.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister wants to talk about Justice Secretaries. His Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials; my shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Front Bench next to me, and it is not the Justice Secretary.

This is important: the Prime Minister wants to talk about anything except what I am asking him. Three times I have asked him whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson; three times, he has refused to answer. We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. From the documents published, we know that he left the questioning about Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition’s position is that the shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values when he says Muslims praying together in Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Even Tommy Robinson—I can hardly believe that I am saying this—has said today that if the shadow Justice Secretary had made those hateful comments two years ago, the Conservative party would have kicked him out. Tommy Robinson is not some sort of moral signpost; he was pointing out how much her party has changed—it is more inclined to his views—and he is right about that. The fact that the shadow Justice Secretary is sitting on her Front Bench shows that she is too weak and has absolutely no judgment.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister wants to talk about my leadership. I am shocked. His former deputy has just fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. I will tell him one thing: she and I both agree that this weak man should be replaced by a strong woman. [Interruption.] But I am not finished, Mr Speaker—I have too much to say to him.

There is still a lot to ask about the Mandelson files. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents released also show that he had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition asked about leadership. When I see religious events in Trafalgar Square—when I see Hindus celebrating Diwali, when I see Jews celebrating ChanukahLive!, when I see Christians performing the passion of Christ, or Muslims praying—that shows the great strength of our diverse city and country. I have never heard her party call out anything other than the Muslim events; it is only when Muslims are praying. The only conclusion is that the Tory party has a problem with Muslims. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the work. Three weeks ago she said we should rush into war. She did not do the work; she did not think through the consequences. Committing our military to a war without thinking through the consequences is the gravest mistake for a Leader of the Opposition. She comes back a week later and says, “Oops! I got that one wrong.” She is utterly irrelevant and she has no judgment. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that I should have empty-chaired the most important NATO summit in years, this is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Greenland is a second-order issue, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who would have jumped into a war with Iran without stopping to think.

On top of that, this week, we have the failure to condemn and sack—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers, but this is certainly not Opposition questions.

[The Prime Minister]

Add to that the failure to condemn and sack the shadow Justice Secretary for the poison and division that he spreads. It is turning out to be quite a month for the Leader of the Opposition who claims that she never makes any mistakes.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

We have seen this play out before: a US rush to military escalation with no plan for what comes next. We have seen schoolgirls bombed in Iran, whole families killed in Lebanon, chaos in a region already scarred by repression and genocide, and economic shocks that hurt the most vulnerable at home. In Irish, there is a phrase, “Ní mhealltar an sionnach faoi dhó”—have we learned no lessons? People are asking exactly that: how many times do these horrors play out before the lessons are learned? The Prime Minister has said that the UK

“will not be drawn into the wider war.”

Will he guarantee two things: that that position will hold in the face of mounting pressure from Trump and Netanyahu, and that this House will get a vote before the UK is involved in any further conflict?

[The Prime Minister]

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my principles have been clear and unwavering. We will protect our people in the region, we will take action to defend ourselves and our allies, and we will not be drawn into the wider war. I want to see this war end as quickly as possible. The longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. That is where we have intervened to support households with the costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement, with Iran giving up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.

Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?

[The Prime Minister]

Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every day, and we should never forget how important it is. It is important that we renew it. We will do that in the best interests of Britain. The right hon. Member is openly advocating a plan without knowing how much it would cost and how it would work. That is not the way to deal with our independent nuclear deterrent.

[Ed Davey]

I am surprised by that response. The French can do it—does the Prime Minister really think Britain cannot?

Moving on, a New World investigation into GB News has found hundreds of shocking breaches of the rules of impartiality and accuracy, yet Ofcom has repeatedly refused to take action. Andrew Neil says:

“Just as Fox basically became the channel of Donald Trump, it’s clear they have turned GB News into the Reform channel”.

We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our great country into its version of Trump’s America. Either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them—which is it?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right to raise an important question of free speech and our media. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that we let it deal with it.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Q4. Violence against women and girls is a global emergency. It is a key concern that we discussed at last week’s United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Social media platforms are promoting and profiting from vile online misogyny. It has made its way on to playgrounds, into workplaces and relationships, and even into our politics, harming women and girls and exploiting young men and boys. In the manosphere, everyone loses. What is this Government doing to tackle the harm being caused by hateful forces online?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and the others who attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women event. We are committed to halving violence against women and girls wherever it takes place, whether that is online, offline or on our streets. That includes banning deepfakes and tackling non-consensual intimate images and abusive, vile content online.

Following up from last week, I was deeply concerned that Travelodge cancelled its meeting with MPs. I want it to put that right and put it right swiftly.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Q2. In January last year, I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of inadequate and inaccessible compensation for those injured by covid vaccinations. The Prime Minister undertook to look into it, along with the Health Secretary, but I am afraid that more than a year later no significant progress has been made. I know that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise the risk that this issue poses to public confidence in mass vaccination—all the more important given the Prime Minister’s opening remarks in this session—and, indeed, the pain it has caused to those who have been injured or lost loved ones for doing only what their Government asked them to do. Will the Prime Minister please re-engage with this issue and ensure that his Government make swift progress in resolving it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for raising that, and I acknowledge the question he asked me last year. I pay tribute to him and to Kate for her campaign. It is vital that we look closely at the rare and tragic cases where things went wrong. We must not fail to do so, so that we maintain confidence in our health service—important in relation to covid, of course, but, as he rightly points out, important today as well. We are committed to looking at reforms to the vaccine damage payment scheme and engaging with those affected to ensure that it meets their needs. We expect the fourth module of the covid inquiry to report next month, which will look specifically at the issue he has raised. I can reassure him that we will look at other recommendations very closely.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Q6.   At the international conference last week, it was clear that mobile phone theft is international organised crime. It drags in people as young as 14 years old. The Mayor of London and the Met commissioner have spent money on the latest tech to combat that crime, and it is working, but they need help. Manufacturers have the ability to deploy a kill switch to make stolen mobile phones worthless, but they do not do it—although Samsung takes it more seriously than Apple. If manufacturers do not do that, will the Government implement legislation to design out crime and keep our streets safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome the Mayor of London’s crackdown. The Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests and recovered thousands of phones, and mobile phone theft has fallen. I agree with her that there is more to do, and we must work with the tech industry in order to do it. If we can reduce the value of stolen phones, it will help to break the business models that drive theft. We are committed to working with the industry, and are willing to consider any further necessary action to drive down that crime.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Q5.  Yesterday, the Chancellor announced £2 billion of funding for UK sovereign artificial intelligence and quantum capabilities. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee was told that Government procurement will adapt to encourage UK companies to develop sovereign AI systems for Government use. In the light of those positive events, will the Prime Minister ensure that key digital systems in health, defence and policing are made sovereign and retendered to UK companies, not to politically motivated US companies such as Palantir?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Chancellor set out yesterday the huge economic opportunities of innovation and AI. We have put £5 billion behind British start-ups, and we will launch our sovereign AI unit with £500 million to help AI businesses start and grow. We are investing the £2 billion that he refers to in our quantum capabilities so that we can be the first country in the world to roll-out quantum computers at scale. Procurement must be the launchpad for start-ups, and we are determined to deliver that.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Q9.   NHS waiting list numbers are down by 374,000 thanks to this Government. Reform UK would take us back to the day when decent healthcare was only for people who could afford it. Innovation needs to be at the heart of our health service as we strive for better patient care. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership between Huddersfield Royal infirmary and the Huddersfield University health innovation centre is a great example of that? How do the Government intend to expand the brilliant health innovation centre model nationally?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a good example. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Thanks to our record investment in the NHS, we have the lowest waiting list numbers for three years, the shortest A&E waits for four years, and the fastest ambulance response times for five years. Stronger community health services, such as the local innovation centre that he mentions, are at the heart of our 10-year plan to go further. We would not have come this far already without the decisions made at the Budget, which were opposed by all Opposition parties.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Q7.   Last week, in the Government’s attack on jury trials, the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers said that the plans were“unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary”,—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 213.]“wrong in principle and wrong in practice”,—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 265.]and“oppressive, authoritarian and, quite honestly…reactionary.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 241.]Some 3,000 of the Prime Minister’s fellow lawyers say that juries have not caused this crisis. Earlier in his career, the Prime Minister himself said that scrapping juries “enables wrongful convictions”. The Institute for Government says that the Government are massively overestimating the savings that they will make from the plans. Let us be clear: the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers oppose it, his professional colleagues oppose it, and, in a previous life, he opposed it, so why is he forcing through a policy that is unjust in principle, unworkable in practice and opposed by everyone?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not abolishing jury trials, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have worked with women and girls who have been victims of sexual violence and rape, and have waited a very, very long time for their cases to go to court. Many of them drop out because of the wait. They have described to me personally the mental anguish that they go through when their case cannot be heard for years, and when they are told of adjournments time and again. I am not prepared to look them in the eye any longer and not do something about it—we owe it to them.

This is about getting the balance right. We are not abolishing jury trials. About 3% of cases go to jury trial, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, while 97% do not. After these changes, it will be 2.25%. That is the difference between the policy that we are advancing and the policy as it now is. We are not abolishing jury trials, and I am not prepared to see victims of violence against women and girls repeatedly let down. That is what happened for 14 long years, and it is not good enough. I set my face against that and I am doing something about it.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Q10. I spent 20 years as a secondary school teacher in Wales. We worked hard. Labour has given them the biggest upgrade of rights in a generation—rights that millions of us fought hard to win—but the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) wants to chuck it all in the bin. Does the Prime Minister stand by these fundamental workers’ rights and agree that only a vote for Labour in May will enshrine them?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very proud of our Employment Rights Act 2025. It delivers strong rights and protections, including for all our brilliant school staff. My hon. Friend is right: Reform Members would rip up those protections. They have nothing to offer but grievance and division, and they have no judgment: just like the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that we should do “all we can” to support the US strikes. He said:

“I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”

It was perfectly, perfectly clear that he got it completely wrong, and perfectly, perfectly clear that he is now desperately trying to U-turn. Absolutely no judgment: not fit to be Prime Minister.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

Q8.   Over the course of the last year, our North sea neighbours, Norway, have opened 49 drill sites for gas and oil. On our side of the North sea, the number is zero. Given that our critical reserve of natural gas is down to two days and how vulnerable we are, and with talk of potential energy rationing coming later this year, is it not time that we changed course, got rid of excessive taxation on the exploration companies, opened up the licences and became self-sufficient in natural gas? With that would come thousands of jobs, increased tax revenues and cheaper gas prices. Is it not time we followed Norway?

[The Prime Minister]

Oil and gas will be part of the mix of our energy for many years to come, as I have set out many times. The hon. Member is now highlighting the consequences of the war that he said we should rush into. He wanted us to go to war. He said it was “perfectly, perfectly clear” that we should support the strikes. Then, just like the Leader of the Opposition, a week later he said, “Oh no, I got that one wrong.” You cannot make mistakes about decisions as serious as committing to war. It is a gross error.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Q13.   Some 95% of the food that we import from non-EU countries has lower welfare standards than that produced by British farmers, costing us millions and putting worse food on our plates. The Labour Rural Research Group will shortly launch our spring push on farming profitability to support British farmers by introducing honest labelling and levelling the playing field for trade and regulation. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting me and the LRRG to discuss how we can work to back British farmers and improve their profitability?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We will always protect high welfare standards, and, through our food and drink deal, we are bringing down barriers for farmers selling to our largest market. Alongside our record £11.8 billion farming budget and investment in cutting-edge innovation, our farming profitability review is focused on boosting profitability. I have already acted and set up the farming and food partnership board, investing £30 million in our farmer collaboration fund.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Q11. Traffic chaos from a botched road realignment is affecting Calvert Green, Steeple Claydon and Twyford. Landowners are still awaiting payment for land taken. There is woeful underfunding of promised mitigation projects in Wendover after inadequate noise modelling. Many years ago, the Prime Minister and I used to be united in our opposition to High Speed 2. He changed. With the upcoming HS2 reset, will he make a personal intervention to ensure that my constituents and communities living with this hell on earth of a construction project are finally treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I know how much it impacts his constituents and how deeply they feel about it. It is important, as we reset and clear up the mess that was left, that we have in our mind’s eye those who are most affected, and make sure that it is fair and that their voices are heard, and we will do so.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q14. Burnley Manchester Road station is a key driver of growth. It is Burnley’s link to Manchester and Leeds and, more importantly for them, it is their link to Burnley. There were more than half a million journeys from the station last year, and yet it is inaccessible. Despite big, empty promises from the last Tory Government, we are no closer to fixing that. A promise of funding was made, but it never came. Will the Prime Minister help me to get this delivered and back my campaign to make Burnley Manchester Road an accessible, modern station, fit for Burnley’s ambitions?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a great champion on this issue and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Rail Minister to discuss the detail. The previous Government took the decision not to shortlist Burnley Manchester Road station for accessibility improvements. We are giving Lancashire combined county authority £641 million, with the freedom to invest in its priorities, including better accessibility. That is what a Labour Government represent: empowering local people to make the best decisions for their local area.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Q12.  Every week, the Prime Minister comes to the Chamber and reads out this pre-scripted nonsense that bears no resemblance to the questions that he is actually asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked him about Peter Mandelson, and he answered about the war in Iran; the Leader of the Opposition asked him about Mandelson again, and he answered with an attack on the shadow Justice Secretary; he was asked about Mandelson again, and he talked about protests in London. What is he scared of? What is he hiding? For a man who has spent years presenting himself as a forensic investigator, he has certainly had a blind spot to the details for this convicted paedophile with a friend in high Labour places. So I ask him again: when he found out that Lord Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, did he speak to Lord Mandelson personally before appointing him as ambassador to the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out the process and it has been put before the House—[Interruption.] I know why Opposition Members do not want to talk about the war: because they supported going into the war, without thinking through the consequences. That is a huge error of judgment. I realise that they do not want to talk about it ever again—I am not surprised. Nor do they want to talk about the shadow Justice Secretary saying that Muslims are not welcome to pray in Trafalgar Square. The Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the Front Bench, or I suspect he will be sitting up on the Reform Bench next.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, the chief executive officer of Travelodge has today again refused to attend a meeting with Members of this House and the other place to answer serious concerns about guest safety and safeguarding. This refusal only deepens the lack of trust in the company’s commitment to protecting women and vulnerable guests. Will the Prime Minister meet me and invite the CEO of Travelodge to discuss the issue? Will he join me in urging the CEO to explain directly to all parliamentarians why she is unwilling to face scrutiny on such an important matter?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and he has raised it with me personally. Our thoughts are obviously with the victim. I was very concerned to hear that the CEO of Travelodge cancelled the meeting with MPs and I would urge them to reconsider. That meeting needs to go ahead with relevant MPs and with the relevant Minister, and the sooner it goes ahead the better. I hope that the CEO of Travelodge is listening to this exchange. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, not just on this occasion but on repeated occasions.