Well, I don't want to repeat the points I made about the relative priorities that we've jointly agreed—I think the record stands on that, and we as a Government stand behind it too. I'm simply pointing out there are consequences for other budgets. The phenomenon of people being slow to return to public transport is not unique to our country—it's been seen right across the world, and it's particularly acute amongst older people, for reasons I think we can all understand and surmise pretty quickly. So, we do have a vice-like situation, where the fare box hasn't returned, and we have the particularly wicked issue in our country of a privatised system, where routes that aren't commercial will not run without direct subsidy.

On the issue of agency workers and profits, under the bus emergency scheme, we do have strict conditions on how the money is spent, how much profit can be taken out, and we have a reasonable amount of leverage with the bus companies about the decisions that are made. But we can't get around the fact that, whichever way we try and slice and dice this argument, the fundamental issue is that the demand is down, the running costs are up, and the public subsidy is coming to an end. And it's an unhappy situation, there's no denying it, and one that I would desperately wish to avoid, if at all possible. But as I said earlier, there's a chance, and let's hope it comes through, of the UK Government responding to its own bus crisis and we'd be able to benefit from some consequentials. But in the absence of that, we're working closely with the industry to try and get the best settlement we can.