Clive Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the report feels like a missed opportunity for the Government to show the public whose side they are on. It entrenches a privatised model that has already failed economically, environmentally and democratically. With 20% to 50% of bills going on servicing debt, why is public ownership—if it is good enough for rail, GB Energy and renewables—not good enough for water?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Financial Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to confirm that my name is Clive, not Cassandra, Lewis—and yet, I feel like the Trojan princess, forever warning of things that will go wrong but being ignored. Will the Minister provide reassurance, given that the Bank of England has repeatedly warned that loosening mortgage lending standards and allowing more people to borrow larger sums relative to their income can push up house prices and increase financial instability? I appreciate that these are not the same deregulations that took place before the 2008 crash, but given the state of the global economy, surely she will understand that many of us on the Government Benches are cautious about deregulating at a time of such instability. I understand that we want to get more people on the housing ladder and to increase growth, but there is a risk. I wonder whether that risk has been duly appreciated.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way, and for some of the things that he has said. Everything he has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) mentioned the suffragettes. I think we need to give the context of a little bit of history. The suffragettes carried out a campaign of window-smashing, poster and paint defacement, cutting telegraph and railway lines and targeted bombing and arson, but specifically avoided harming people. There is a long history in this country of direct action that pushes the boundaries of our democracy. It is very difficult for all of us, but this is still direct action, not terrorist action.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Let me first associate myself with the very good comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I agree with the proscription of the two far-right fascist organisations—I think they should be proscribed—but can we as a House accept that there are those of us present who have a different take on today’s proscription of Palestine Action? We do not have to agree with the behaviour or actions of Palestine Action to make the case today that this proscription is wrong. I ask hon. Members to acknowledge that the many of us here today who take a different view on this issue are as much a part of this democracy as those who agree with the proscription. It is just that our take on the delicacy of our democracy, on what this proscription does and on how it undermines our democracy happens to differ from that of other people. There are Opposition Members who have repeatedly said that they understand and empathise with constituents who have smashed and vandalised ultra low emission zone cameras and low emission zone cameras. Direct action is not just of the left; everyone in our democracy can partake in it. This is a judgment call about how we best protect our democracy and an acknowledgment that not all threats are external or violent. Some threats are based on the decisions that we take in this place. Sometimes, we might take decisions that fundamentally undermine our own democracy. I have no doubt that some of us will be called terrorist sympathisers by some who disagree with our position, but that would be wrong. Look around the world and watch as democracy and the rule of law are systematically smashed. Corporations and the wealthy have increasing power and wealth to influence our democracy. Look over the Atlantic at the United States. Our democracies are delicate; our democracies are precious. The decisions we take in this place determine whether those democracies will survive into the future. I look around the world and around this country—I look at the authoritarian right party that is 10 points ahead in the polls—and I worry about the future of our democracy. This Government—our Government—have to make decisions that take account of the possibility that we might not be in government one day. It may be the authoritarian right who are in government, and they will take this further, faster and deeper than we ever have, so we should be putting in fireguards now, protecting our democracy, and this measure does not do that. In conclusion, I understand what terrorism is. I was in London on 7 July 2005 and I watched my community—this city—attacked by real terrorists. At that point, rightly or wrongly, I decided that I was going to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists. I went because I love this country and I love our democracy and I want to see it protected. Today’s proscription order against Palestine Action undermines that, and I wish that my Government were not doing this.

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

  More

  When coming to a crunchy question or problem, I always think it is wise to take a step or two back and try to unpick some of the assumptions that underpin the issue—to see the bigger picture, if you like. Not everyone will agree with some of the conclusions that I come to, and that is fine—this is a debate, not an echo chamber, although some people may be surprised to hear that—but it is right that we robustly test the proposition before us, to try and understand the structural issues that underpin this Bill. Let us consider the key issue here: rising welfare costs could lead to the welfare budget becoming unsustainable. The assumption often made is that welfare costs rise because of individual failings, such as people being lazy, unwilling to work or even dishonest—workshy, in other words—but this assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. The welfare bill is not growing because people suddenly became lazy. It is rising because our economy and our society are fundamentally broken. They are broken because of 14 years of cuts and of dehumanised, punitive changes wrapped up as reform but little more than a brutal disciplining of the workforce, compliments of the Conservatives. That workforce are increasingly finding themselves trapped between insecure low pay and in-work poverty, or a humiliating workfare programme that has sucked the marrow out of millions, leaving them drained and burned out and leading to a soaring mental health crisis. What does explain our dilemma is the fact that work itself has fundamentally changed. Jobs are less secure and often poorly paid, and many who work full time still need benefits because wages do not meet the basic costs of housing, food, childcare and utilities. On top of this, the cost of living crisis is being driven by a toxic mix of structural failures. The climate crisis has increased volatility in the global supply chains of everything from microchips to semiconductors, pushing up food and energy costs. At the same time, companies operating under monopoly and oligopoly conditions, particularly in the energy, water and food sectors, have taken advantage of this disruption to engage in price gouging, driving profits sky high while families struggle to make ends meet. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the weakness of trade unions has limited workers’ ability to bargain for pay rises that reflect rising costs—costs that, by and large, Governments have failed to cap. Yes, caps on energy prices have been half-heartedly attempted, but what about a cap on rents and on greedy landlords? What about capping the large agri-corporations pushing up food prices or water companies extorting all of us? These are the underlying structural causes. Their collective outcome is a relentless squeeze on real incomes and an increased reliance on welfare simply to survive. In truth, our welfare system is increasingly the state subsidising employers who pay poverty wages, landlords charging unaffordable rents and corporations extracting vast profits, all at society’s expense. All the while our climate and ecology decline, adding to that instability. The Bill, which at its heart is about balancing the books by tightening welfare eligibility and gatekeeping access, will not address those root causes. It still punishes victims rather than tackling the structural failures, and I cannot support it. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The Labour Government have made a start on many of those structural issues—the trade union Bill, GB Energy and the leasehold Bill—but they must go further and faster if we are to make a real impact on who our economy works for and, ultimately, bring down the welfare bill. Welfare reform should deliver dignity and fairness, not austerity and exclusion. Until we face those deeper truths, we will continue to address the symptoms rather than the causes, perpetuating the very injustices we claim to want to solve and that so many of us came to this place to sort out.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the comments made across the House about the dire and despicable nature of the Iranian regime? That said, last week the Foreign Secretary told the House that attacks on Iran were not in our national interest. So does he believe that the strikes led by Trump and Netanyahu—two hard-right authoritarians with no love for a rules-based order—have made Britain or the world any safer? Or does he agree with me that, for much of the world watching, the message is chillingly clear? In a global order where rules mean little and might makes right, deterrence not diplomacy is now the only defence; and that, as he must acknowledge, makes global security more precarious than ever.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for opening this timely debate—she made a fantastic speech—and hon. Friends for their contributions. I want to touch on the story that Windrush tells of this country. Stories are important; the stories we tell ourselves define us as a country. It is right that we celebrate the Windrush generation and their contribution, but as other speakers have said, there is a dark side to this story. I do not want to be too negative, but I want to touch on some of that dark side, because it is important and instructive, given where we find ourselves, as a country and a world. I would not be standing here today as a black Member of Parliament if one of my ancestors in Africa had not been abducted and put on a slave ship. For generations after that, my ancestors were beaten and made to work in the most terrible conditions to make money for someone in this country, or for their slave master in the Caribbean. Yet because of those ancestors, I stand here today. History is complicated—I think we can agree on that—but that does not mean that we should not try to unpick it. Looking around at my colleagues, I must say that it is politically fashionable in some quarters to say that many of us are recipients of DEI—diversity, equality and inclusion policies—that we have been gifted our places, and that anyone who comes from the black community, is a women or has tendencies or sexualities that are not seen as the norm has been gifted their position. Anyone who understands the Labour party selection process will know that is not the case. In fact, many of us faced a double whammy—we are both working class and black. It takes a lot to get into this place, and yet we are here, and we are not going anywhere. I remember back in 2021, when the Conservatives, who were here on the Government Benches, under Boris Johnson, produced the disgraceful race report. I think they want to forget that. I would be interested to hear what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), thinks about that report now. It said that structural racism does not exist, it is a figment of our collective imagination, we have effectively been dreaming about it for 400 years, and there is no link between empire, slavery and the racism that stretches from that all the way to the Windrush scandal and beyond. Indeed, that notion of outsiders—of foreigners—figures in much of our immigration debate to this very day. What is racism? It is a hierarchy of worth. We see it all around the world in conflicts: “If you are from this part of the world with this ethnicity, your worth is this much, but if that is your ethnicity, your worth is that much and you can take that much suffering. And if you’re up here, you don’t need to suffer; you’re part of the elite.” That is what racism is: a hierarchy of suffering. We cannot forget that it is real and allow people to tell us that our history is something in which only good things happened, where things were shiny and nice, and that we had an empire to help and develop the rest of the world. I remember when I was going on the ITV breakfast programme, and I had to have a chat with the producer beforehand. He said, “Clive, you do realise that the railways in India have helped India to get into the 21st century and to industrialise? The British built those railways.” I replied, “You know, you’re right, but that is why it’s so complicated. Do you think for a second that the British built the railways in India for the benefit of the Indians?” The answer is no; they built them to extract vast wealth from India, and it just so happens that the Indians can now use that railway network to industrialise and make themselves richer. History is complicated. I will finish with this. There is a movement around the world; in Germany, in Europe and, dare I say it, in the United States, whose President believes that a genocide is happening in South Africa—really, he believes that, and he is coming here for a state visit. All around the world, there is an attack on history—on good history. Good history is complicated; it tells a complicated story about this country and its past. I have served this country knowing full well its history in empire, knowing full well its history in slavery. I have served it because I love this country, warts and all. I do not need to tell myself a story about this country being perfect in the past and only doing things for the good. I love it, warts and all, because it has given me and my family, friends and community so many opportunities. My dad was welcomed to this country by my mother’s English family. The trade union movement welcomed him. Our history is complex. The Labour party is complex. The country is complex. History is complex. Let us never forget that, as we go forwards. We must understand that history is complex for a reason because—and this moves me—we are all human beings, and human beings are complex themselves. That is why our history is complex and that is what we need to understand. As we move forward, talk about Windrush, celebrate Windrush Day, and pass legislation in this place about black people, about immigration and about asylum seekers, let us remember our complex history and try to do better in the future.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making a fantastic speech, and for securing this debate. It does seem sometimes quite unfashionable in this day and age to look at the discrimination that that community has endured for so many decades, and not to see it as structural racism. In other words, there is a thread from colonialism, empire and slavery all the way through to Windrush and what we still experience to this day. Would she comment on that issue?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister believe that the Windrush scandal was an aberration—a few bad apples over a few decades—or was the cause structural racism?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with the Bill is misdiagnosis? The problem is not nature holding up house building, or local authorities—which have been starved of cash for the last 15 years— holding up housing, but developers that are sitting on 1.4 million homes with planning permission, because they are land banking and profiteering. That is the problem that the Bill is not getting to. We do not have to destroy nature, and we do not have to undermine our future environmental protections.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear that the collapse of KKR’s rescue deal is not a blip; it is a reckoning—a moment that exposes the complete bankruptcy of the privatised water model. This morning’s interim Cunliffe review of the water sector confirms the scale of the crisis. It describes our water system—a regulated statutory monopoly—as being too risky for investors now. It did not seem to be too risky when shareholders were siphoning off billions in dividends while letting the pipes rot, the rivers choke and the debt pile up. The only people truly at risk now are bill payers, who face a 35% real-terms price hike in the next five years—and not just to fund clean water or climate resilience, because half of it is to boost investor return. So I ask my right hon. Friend again: when will the Government stop fiddling, put Thames Water into special administration, strip out the debt, and begin the job of returning our water system—not just Thames Water—to public ownership?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, my hon. Friend has made his point.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Around 50 years ago, Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens’ assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”—

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For how long does my hon. Friend think we should polish the turd—we can probably find that floating in most of our rivers—of privatised English water?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  People talk about whether something can be taken out of public control and put back into privatisation. Of course, Parliament is sovereign and that can always happen, but there is a point about giving control to the public. Let us take the NHS, which is a public service. Any Government in the post-war period could have taken the NHS back into privatisation. Why did they not do so? They would not have dared, because it would have been so publicly damaging and politically destructive. That is what would happen with our water. Does the hon. Member agree? [Interruption.]

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 could have instructed Ofwat to take a far more rigorous approach to the payment of bonuses? At the moment, bosses do not get their bonus if they have a one-star rating. In the last 15 years, every single water company, except one, has had more than a one-star rating, hence they have been able to pay bonuses. Does my hon. Friend think that could have been tightened up?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I will be very brief. There is a crisis of democracy, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) has just mentioned, we are rejecting a citizens’ assembly. Such an assembly could have the technical support and technical capacity as well, but it would give a voice to the public. Instead, we have decided to give that voice to Sir Jon Cunliffe, a lifelong Treasury insider who works in the City of London and who will make a decision based on its interests. Can she not see the problem here, and the lack of confidence the public have in the democratic decisions that are being taken by people like that?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful speech in this debate. There are a few things to say about the costs. First, we would control the assets. The assets would come off the balance sheet, which would be one mitigating factor. Secondly, throughout the post-war period, with British Leyland, Railtrack in 1945, coal, steel, gas, civil aviation and even the Bank of England, we paid less than the market value. As I explained at the beginning, this is about a mindset. We can do an audit of what the companies have taken out —what money they have extracted from our economy— and then we can pay them an appropriate rate and return. It may well be that they are paid nothing, but they may get something. Their creditors may take a haircut, but, frankly, that is better than our constituents taking a continuous haircut with their bills.