 Prime Minister, it's for me a great honor to introduce someone who you all know, they will come around back to Davos and it's actually eight years in a consecutive way and every time you had a new message for us, so we appreciate very much your coming in 2014. Prime Minister, over the past year you have played a particularly critical role in the global governance system as the UK held the presidency of the G8, focusing on the three issues which you presented last year to this audience here, trade, tax and transparency, the three T's. Prime Minister, we are now very eager to hear what you will tell us this year and I just can tell you, we are also here to support you because those three issues I just mentioned can only be resolved in a multi-stakeholder approach integrating business, civil society and as a leadership of the political community. So please welcome Prime Minister David Cameron, very cordially, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Well, ladies and gentlemen, Klaus, thank you very much again for that introduction and for welcoming me back to Davos as you said I think this is my eighth consecutive year so I've been through the seven year itch and I've decided to keep on with this relationship and it is, I find, a very beneficial event because it is an opportunity for political leaders to meet with business, to listen to concerns of business and enterprise and to respond to those concerns. Thank you for what you said about last year's speech. I could today give you an update on trade, tax and transparency. I of course want to take credit for all of the things that have happened over the last year, the Bali World Trade Deal, the launch of the EU-US trade talks, the OECD's excellent work on tax transparency, the revolution we're seeing in terms of beneficial ownership disclosure, these have all been I think very, very good developments for our world and I'm glad that the G8 chaired by Britain has given them a good kickstart. But what I want to talk about today is actually the subject in many ways that I think European leaders come back to at Davos again and again and that is the key challenge of how do European countries make a success of globalization. For years the West has been written off. People say we're facing some sort of inevitable decline. They say we can't make anything anymore and whether it's the shift from manufacturing to services or the transfer from manual jobs to machines, the end point these critics would say is some dystopian vision where the East wins while the West loses, the workers lose while the machines win. And I don't believe it has to be this way. Now of course we shouldn't be starry-eyed about globalization. It presents huge challenges as our economies and our societies try to adapt. But I don't believe we should take this pessimistic view. If we engage in the right way, if we get the fundamentals of our economies right, if we sort out our debts, maximize our competitiveness, build on our strengths, then globalization offers our businesses the chance to win new contracts, to export into markets that were previously closed, and to create jobs fulfilling the demands of consumers thousands of miles away. Indeed, if we make the right decisions we may also see more of what has been a small but discernible trend where some jobs that were once offshoreed are coming back from East to West. And it's this that I want to talk about today. All of this is about the same purpose, securing sustainable, well-paid jobs, giving people pride in using their skills, offering workers a chance to make world-beating products, bringing more of the benefits of globalization back home, and ensuring those benefits are felt by hardworking people in terms of security, stability and peace of mind. Let me start with what we're doing in Britain. We have set out our long-term economic plan to secure our country's economic future. It has five parts. First getting the fundamentals right, cutting our deficits so we deal with our debts, safeguarding our economy for the long term, and keeping mortgage rates low. Second, reducing taxes to help hardworking people become more financially secure. Third, capping welfare and reducing immigration, so our economy delivers for people who work hard and play by the rules. Fourth, delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can be best placed to win the jobs of the future. And fifth, driving that job creation by backing business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes. Each part of this plan is already producing results. The deficit that we inherited was the biggest in our post-war history, and already it is down by a third. Our economy is growing. Last this week the IMF upgraded its growth forecast for Britain by more than any other G7 country. And we've seen also the largest quarterly increase in employment since our records began. There are now more than 1.6 million new private sector jobs since early 2010, and around 400,000 more small businesses operating in our country. We've cut taxes for 25 million working people, we've reformed welfare so that it pays to work, and we've created more apprenticeships than at any time in our history. And we've taken unprecedented steps to back enterprise, scrapping 1.2 billion pounds of red tape, including pushing for the removal of the most problematic EU regulations. We're investing billions in our infrastructure, in roads, rail, and what is set to become the best superfast broadband network in Europe. Ernst and Young now say that Britain is the best place in Europe for new entrepreneurs. That has not come about automatically. It is because we have chosen to build our long-term economic plan on Britain's strengths. We've chosen to play to those strengths as an open economy. Rather than trying to pull up the drawbridge and shut ourselves off from globalization, we've chosen to embrace foreign investment. We've championed those vital EU trade deals with America, Canada and Asia. We believe these can add millions of jobs to our economies and billions of pounds to the value of our businesses. I'm proud of the fact that it is Indian investment that is helping to drive the massive success story of Jaguar Land Rover. I'm proud of the fact that the Chinese will be investing in our nuclear industry. I'm proud of the fact that in the first half of this year, the UK became the world's largest recipient of inward foreign direct investment. We have made choices. We've made difficult choices. In a time of austerity, we chose to maintain our spending on science and innovation. We chose to cut business taxes. Corporation tax will soon be as low as 20%, the lowest in the G7, and it will be as low as 10% for companies that turn innovation into manufacturing based in the UK. This is the country that is so committed to cutting burdens on business that no government minister, Prime Minister included, can propose a new regulation that affects business without first getting rid of two other regulations. So this is Britain, open, pioneering, creative, innovative, and frankly, ready for your investment. But I believe we have the chance to become something else. In recent years, as I've said, there's been a practice of offshoring where companies move production to low-cost countries. We've all seen it, we all know it's true, and we all know it will continue. But there is now an opportunity for the reverse. There is an opportunity for some of those jobs to come back. A recent survey of small and medium-sized businesses found that more than one in 10 has brought back to Britain some production in the past year. More than double the proportion, sending production in the opposite direction. From food processing to fashion, from cars to computer makers, it's not just one sector where this trend is emerging. It is across all sectors of the economy. The food manufacturer, Simmington's, is moving a factory from China to Leeds. Hornby, the model train manufacturer, is bringing back some of its manufacturing from India to Britain. Raspberry Pi computers have shipped production back into Wales. A company I visited yesterday morning, Ventaxia, has shipped jobs from China to Crawley. Yaiga, the fashion brand, stopped manufacturing in the UK 15 years ago altogether, but it's now bringing back as much as 10% of its output. Take our car industry. Britain now exports more cars than we import. And based on this success, the automotive industry is indicating that it could bring onshore some three billion of supply chain contracts. But we're not just seeing these trends and opportunities in Britain. A survey of major US-based manufacturing companies found that more than a third were planning or actively considering shifting production facilities from China to America. While one recent forecast suggests millions of jobs could be available for reshoring globally. Now, to win these jobs, we need to understand what is driving these changes. Now, of course, part of the story is about rising costs in emerging markets and natural consequence of these economies developing and their people becoming wealthier. Senior pay in China now matches or exceeds pay in America and Europe, while rising oil prices and complex supply chains are increasing transport costs too. But at the same time, there are a number of factors that are pulling companies back home. Some companies are choosing to locate production nearer to the consumer markets in the West. By shortening their supply chains, they can develop new products and react more quickly to changing consumer demand. There's more customization, more personalization. People want better and faster customer service. For example, if you're inspired by some new trend on a London catwalk, you want to make a new product available in days, not weeks, and a shorter supply chain will help. So will the new technologies, like 3D printing, where you can personalize the design and print in hours rather than choose from a more limited range of pre-designed goods and then ship them in weeks. So there's no doubt that when it comes to reshoring in the US, one of the most important factors has been the development of shale gas, which is flooring US energy prices with billions of dollars of energy cost savings predicted over the next decade. Now taken together, I believe these trends have the ability to be a fresh driver of growth in Europe too. I want Britain to seize these opportunities. I believe there is a chance for Britain to become the reshor nation. For years, we've had UKTI out there helping our businesses to export and encouraging inward investment. Now I want to give that same dedicated support to helping businesses to reshor. So we're setting up a one stock shop to help business capitalize on the opportunities that reshoring brings. Much as Britain can be the reshor nation, so Europe should benefit from this too, but only if we act now to make this as attractive as possible. And as much as there is an opportunity, we have to be careful not to misrepresent it. So let me be clear about the three things I'm not saying. First, I am not saying there's some finite number of jobs in the world and that our success is on some sort of tug of war between East and West to win them back at the expense of the East. That completely misunderstands the nature of what is going on and how economies work. Growth and dynamism means that new jobs are continually being created and recreated. So our gain is not their loss, rather their gain can become our gain. Second, I'm not saying that reshoring is going to bring back all the jobs that were offshored in the first place. We have to keep the scale of this development in proportion. So far, most of the firms involved are mainly bringing back production destined for markets in the West. Some companies will continue to offshore more than they bring back, and much of what these firms have moved overseas will remain there, if not in China, then in other low-cost economies like Indonesia or Vietnam. And third, I'm not saying that our economic success depends on winning some sort of race to the bottom, nor should we be engaged in such a race. Getting decent, well-paid jobs at every level is what we should be aiming for. And I believe that's what we can get, and I believe that reshoring can help. When the mobile network company, EE, recently decided to move 300 call centre jobs from the Philippines to Northern Ireland, they didn't do it because the wages were lower, they did it because the productivity was higher. And because the company decided it would be more successful by having a local call centre for its customers. And as they make this move, they aren't just creating jobs for telephone operators, they're creating jobs for managers, for lawyers, for technicians. So what I am saying is this, right now, economies in Europe have a unique opportunity to accelerate this new trend of jobs coming back home, and we should be confident that we can do this. As we do so, we should never forget one of our most important strengths. We should never undersell the core values of liberal democracy to which we hold dear. The rule of law, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the media, property rights, accountable institutions. I often say to investors here in Davos, before you invest in a country, you should ask how many times the government loses in court. Sadly in Britain, it's all too often, but it's a demonstration of the rule of law which is so important for business certainty. These are all foundations for long-term stability and for commercial success. But for reshoring to happen, we need to build on these foundations. And that means settling once and for all two key arguments that risk undermining our competitiveness. First, on the overall business environment, and second, on the need for cheap and predictable sources of energy. And I want to say a word about both of these two before taking your questions. All of us here in Davos know what it is that businesses need if they're to choose to locate in Europe. They want macroeconomic stability. They want economies with their debts and deficits under control. They want strong financial institutions like that provided by the City of London. They want consistent support for free trade, especially that vital trade deal with the US. And above all, we need an unashamedly pro-business regulatory environment with labour market flexibility, low jobs taxes and a willingness to pave the way for new business and new business models. These are the issues that our business task force highlighted in their recent report, a report seven European leaders from left, right and centre, from north and south, supported late last year in Brussels. We're making progress in the battle for an enterprise of friendly Europe. The Eurozone crisis has focused government on the need for structural reform, the accession to the EU of countries that experience state socialism, the progress of sensible, pro-enterprise governments, all these things have helped. The fight is not yet won. There are still people, though, who think that the key to success is ever greater social protections and more regulations. There are still some in the European Commission who seem to think if they're not producing new regulations, they're somehow not doing their job. And that somehow removing existing regulations is a sort of act of self-harm. There are still some in the European Parliament who attempted to gold plate every piece of legislation. And we should be clear. We don't protect workers by piling on the regulations and directives to such an extent that people become unemployable. We have to maintain the flexibility for companies to grow, to expand, to change. Incredibly complex and overwritten directives that take this flexibility away, that make life difficult for temporary workers or that stop firms moving people between plants, they just mean that companies who might want to reshore will reshore somewhere else. By contrast, where countries are embracing reform, new jobs are flowing. In the UK, BT moved 1,200 jobs back because of flexibility by the unions. Last year, Nissan said it would invest 130 million euros in its Barcelona plant, mainly because Spanish unions agreed to recast working conditions and allow more flexible arrangements. This is the key for our success. Now, the same is true for energy. To relocate in Europe, businesses will be encouraged by cheap and predictable sources of energy. Yes, we need renewables, they are a vital part of our future. That is why Britain has made itself one of the best places for green investment anywhere in the world. We have the world's first dedicated green investment bank, we have the world's largest offshore wind market, and we need nuclear as part of that energy mix too. I'm delighted that in Britain last year, we agreed the first new nuclear build for a generation, 16 billion pounds of investment, 25,000 new jobs, that will ensure safety of energy supplies, but we also need to explore the opportunity represented by shale gas. Now, I understand the concerns that some people have. We need the right regulations, such as ensuring that well casings are set at the right depths, tight seals, and governments need to reassure people that nothing would go ahead if environmental dangers were present. But if this is done properly, shale gas can actually have lower emissions than imported gas. This week's announcements from the European Union represent important progress, but there's still a way to go in really embracing this opportunity. We should be clear that if the European Union or its member states impose burdensome, unjustified, or premature regulatory burdens on shale exploration in Europe, investors will quickly head elsewhere. Oil and gas will still be plentifully produced, but Europe will be dry. We should look at what shale gas has done for America, for American firms, for American jobs. It has reduced industrial gas prices in America to around one-quarter of those in Europe, and it is set to create a million more manufacturing jobs as firms build new factories. Recent studies suggest that US GDP is going to be, on average, close to half a trillion dollars higher every year between 2008 and 2035 because of shale. That is the scale of the opportunity, and that is what European leaders, European countries, must be considering. The confederation of British industry and business Europe are coming together to launch a blueprint for industrial competitiveness. Their message is very clear. Act now to seize the opportunities of reshoring, deal with our debts, roll back the unnecessary regulation, and embrace the opportunities of shale gas. Business is making the case, and frankly, please don't hold back in telling Europe's governments what we need to do. European countries, in my view, face a choice. If we act now, we can ensure our businesses, our peoples, and our societies can benefit from the next phases of globalization. The security, stability, and peace of mind that those we serve yearn for can only be delivered by facing these difficult choices, and we must not fail them. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you for my welcome. But to take some questions, it's a bit dark out there, but if you wave, I'll get your microphone. Lady here in the front. Thank you, Prime Minister. I am a member of the European Parliament for Sweden, and I would like to ask you two things. What you said today is a celebration of freedom of movement. Everything you have achieved is thanks that we can go over borders, and you're celebrating globalization. But recently, you have been calling for restricting freedom of movement in Europe. You have been calling from discriminating from some of European citizens to come to Britain. And here now today, you have been saying that you achieved to reduce migration. It is inconsistent. Do you have anything to say about that? A second, sorry. I'm sorry, yes, please. No, because you also talked about the European Parliament gold plating. And as a member of the European Parliament, I was happy that at least some Prime Minister talks about the European Parliament. Since we share co-decision and we have co-legislators, and everything that has happened in Europe has happened also with Britain, what you don't like and what you criticize as Britain as a key player, and as members of the European Parliament from your party in Britain, I would ask you to ask your colleagues in the European Parliament to be more constructive because you achieve better regulation, smarter regulation, deregulation by working in the European Parliament, and not just by undermining what everybody else is doing. Please do so. Thank you. Thank you, well, I believe that one of Britain's roles in Europe is to speak very frankly and to speak very clearly. Speak very clearly about those things we welcome that are working well for Europe and to speak frankly when things aren't working. I think that's part of Britain's role and a role I'm proud to play. And let me answer your questions very directly. First of all, on the European Parliament, your second question, Britain does play a very constructive role in that Parliament. We've been making arguments about the dangers of over-regulation, over-regulation, for instance, on shale gas, which Europe has correctly avoided, the dangers of over-regulation in the single market, which is a permanent battle. But I'm actually confident, and you can hear in that speech, that we're making some progress. The European Commission, for the first time, is not just looking at regulations it might bring in, is now looking at regulations it might scrap. It's going to have a scorecard for how it's getting on with scrapping regulation. That is a British initiative being run through the European Parliament and being run through the Council of Ministers. Now let me address the issue about migration, because I think it's important. The right to move in Europe and apply for jobs in other European countries and take those jobs is an important freedom in the European Union, which I subscribe to. But let me make two important points. The first is, it is a right to move to go and work. It should not be a right to move to go and claim benefits. And that is why I make absolutely no apology for tightening the British benefits system so that it can't be abused. And I think that is absolutely the right thing to do. Second, on the freedom of movement more generally. I think we have to learn the lessons of recent history. When the last government in Britain in 2004 decided to allow immediate access to the British labor market, to the eight European countries that joined the European Union in 2004, without any transitional changes, 1.5 million people moved from those countries to Britain. That was probably the largest migratory movement that has happened in recent British history. And I think if you ask the founders of the European Union, was it your intention that there would be movements like that, 1.5 million people? I think they would have said that was not the intention at all. So what I am saying is when it comes to future accessions, when new countries join the European Union, we should look at transitional controls that we have. We should look at longer transitional periods. And frankly, we should look at those transitional periods thinking about their purpose. And the truth is this, if you have countries of relatively similar GDP, you tend to get migratory movements of a relative balance, a number of people going to work from Britain in France or France to Britain. When you have vast disparities of GDP, you can get vast movements. And I think in looking at these future transitional controls, we should be asking the question, not only do they need to be longer, but do we need to look at issues like making sure GDP per capita becomes more equal before those controls are taken away? Now, I would argue that it's practical, good, conservative, common sense, and frankly, that's something the European Union needs a lot of. Next question. Comment of Bulgarian Cardiac Institute. I'm not going to ask a question about community migration, even though I'm tempted to. What Britain was going to do about periphery of Europe? Exactly your last sentence concerning the overcoming this, for us disparities, what we are seeing over the last 10, 12 years, even growing, and youth unemployment in the periphery of Europe. I'm sure of your background to understand very well that this is the key of having united Europe. Yeah. Well, I think one of the great, as I said, I speak frankly about Europe, I speak about the good things, I speak about the things that need to change. Let's be frank, one of the greatest successes for the European Union has been the accession process. If you look at countries that have been queuing up to join the European Union, the process of application has been an incredibly powerful engine for development. Countries have had to put in place better judicial systems, better rules on property rights, opening up markets, making sure their economies are competitive and properly functioning. We've seen great progress in terms of growth in those countries before they've joined. And I remain a strong supporter of widening the membership of the European Union, which has been a longstanding British aim. I think it's been a very successful policy. But we don't help the accession of those countries if we don't speak frankly about the problems of the migratory flows to which I just referred. I think it's completely consistent to be in favor of widening membership, to be in favor of the process of membership driving development, but at the same time, understanding the very real concerns people have about migration, which we need to address. Let me make one last point on migration because I think it is important. To me, an immigration policy on its own is not effective. Immigration needs to combine with welfare and education because the truth for advanced European countries like Britain, if we educate our young people to the right level and if we have a welfare system where it always pays to work rather than to remain idle, then if you combine that with an immigration, proper immigration system, then you have the best chance of actually making the most of your own resources rather than simply encouraging migration. So those three things need to go together. Let's take the lady in red microphone coming towards you. Thank you, Prime Minister. France is so great, the general secretary of the TUC. I very much welcome your commitment to the need to create decent well-paid jobs. And clearly we share that, and I will take that as support for the TUC's campaign. Britain needs a pay rise. But four out of five of the new jobs created since 2010 have been in low-paid industries. Can you show a lead in that commitment to decent well-paid jobs by signing the government up to the campaign for a living wage and ensuring that all government employees have that right? Well, first of all, good to have this discussion. And I hope that the TUC will warmly welcome what I'm saying about the opportunities to reshore jobs. I think if we get our economic policies right, if we get our labor flexibility right, if trade unions show the flexibility that they have in the examples that I gave, I think there's real opportunities. As I say, not simply for returning jobs that were considered low-paid, but actually returning jobs at all levels of pay. That is what we want to see. If you look at the job creation record we've had over the last three and a half years, I think it has been fairly remarkable that even though growth was sluggish to take off at first, we've actually got 1.6 million more private sector jobs and we have 1.3 million more people in employment overall. I remember coming to conferences like this and people saying, look, the decline in public sector jobs that you're going to see because of the necessary cuts you have to make, you'll never make that up with the creation of private sector jobs. But actually for every job lost in the public sector, we've seen four created in the private sector. So I think that is hugely positive. Now, the living wage, I support the living wage. I think the living wage is a great idea. I think that employers who can afford to pay the living wage should do so. The mayor of London is here in Davos today. I'm very proud of the fact that a conservative mayor of London has introduced the living wage for staff that work under him. So where companies, where organizations can pay the living wage, I think they should. But I think we have to recognize a fundamental truth. You say support pay rises. I want to see people paid more, but the truth is we have to make sure we're succeeding in terms of productivity, in terms of our output, in order that that pay can be earned. And it's the same with the living wage. I think if you decree it across the country without considering whether it can be afforded, you could lose jobs rather than gain jobs. So I support it, but the right way to do it is people should pay it when they can afford to. And increasingly, you're seeing a number of councils and other organizations able to do it, and I welcome that when it happens. Next question. Let's have a gentleman down the front. Hello, Siddiq Ghilani, Chief Strategy Officer of Lufthansa Group. Mr. Prime Minister, we have a scenario where Scotland can leave the UK and the British people can vote to leave the European Union. How do you adjust your grand vision for the UK if those two things were to happen? Well, let me be clear about my goal. My goal is that Scotland should choose to remain part of a successful United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom should choose to remain part of a reformed Europe. But as I say, I think in politics, you have to deal very frankly and very candidly with the situation that you face. And the fact is Scotland voted for a Scottish National Party government. And I thought the right thing to do as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was not to try and deny people in Scotland a legitimate vote, but to give them that legitimate vote, to make sure it was fairly done, make sure it was legal, and to make sure it was decisive. Now, there's a big debate taking place in my country and taking place in Scotland about the future of the United Kingdom. I'm confident the debate is going in the direction of the United Kingdom because I think all the arguments stack up for this very successful family to stay together. I think we'll be safer together. We'll be more prosperous together. We'll be more secure together. We'll count for more on the world stage together. And I think those arguments are resonating. And I think it's very important in these situations for the rest of the United Kingdom not to stay silent but to stay very clearly to Scotland and to Scottish people. We want you to stay. This is your choice. This is your decision. But we want you to stay in this family and I'm confident that's what will happen. Likewise, with the European Union situation, I could have said, well, I know there's an enormous unhappiness in Britain about the current state of the European Union. I know there's a lot of public disquiet, a lot of which I share about the way the European Union works, but I'm just going to ignore those voices. I think that would be the wrong approach. The right approach in politics when you have a problem is actually to have a strategy for addressing and dealing with that problem. So I think better than casting this under the carpet and hoping the problem will go away is to say, right, let's try and reform the European Union. Let's reform Britain's relationship with the European Union and then let's put that to an in and out referendum of the British public before the end of 2017. And again, I'm confident that we'll have a successful renegotiation and a successful referendum. Why am I confident of that? Well, because I sit around the table with my 27 European Union colleagues and you can see that change needs to come. Change needs to come because the Eurozone needs change. There isn't a single currency in the world that could succeed without elements of a banking union, without elements of greater fiscal union, without elements of more common policies and common support. The current treaties don't provide for that. And so there needs to be change. And when that change happens, there's an opportunity for those of us outside the single currency to say we need change too. So I'm confident this is doable, deliverable, and as I say, also winnable for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union. Much better to have a strategy to actually secure these problems and deal with these problems than rather to wish they weren't there. Last question, let's have a gentleman here saying I'll take it. There we are, that's sort of, that's the Davos spirit. Prime Minister, this is Hinduja group of companies. I would like to thank you very much for the comments what you have given. I've been here coming for World Economic Forum for the last 25 years and more than that. I've seen most of the prime ministers from the Britain who have been here from the day the Edward Heats until goes on. The you, you're the last one which I've met now. I would say that World Economic Forum discuss the issues of the world. You as a prime minister, the British I know are the best brains in the world. This is my experience. I don't know what the world says about it. But as you know, we are going through a different problems of the poverty of the world. You G5 countries, G7 countries, G20 countries, they all talk about the poverty of the world. But as the British brains are considered to be the best one, why don't you focus on the programs on the Africa where the British has a great influence on the African world? If you could put light on it, we would appreciate very much. I have a thought on it that British, India and Africa. Right, thank you. Three can play a very important role, thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for your question and thank you for complimenting my fellow countrymen. I won't take the compliment. I work with a lot of people who are a lot brighter than I am and I see that every day. The point you make about aid and Britain playing a leading role in tackling poverty, I completely agree with. I'm very proud of the fact. I talked about the choices that we've made. I'm proud of the fact that Britain under my government made a choice, which is that we had made a promise to the poorest people in the world that we'd spend 0.7% of our GDP on overseas aid. We made a promise, we'd do that in 2013 and in 2013 we did that. And I'm very proud of that and I think it gives us the ability to say to other countries you should keep your promises to the poorest countries in the world and the poorest people in the world as well. One of the reasons I think it's important is I think that aid can do an enormous amount in terms of vaccinating children against diseases, in terms of providing food for the hungry, in terms of tackling some of the most deepest problems of entrenched poverty. But there's also another reason which is I think it gives Britain now, and I'm gonna talk about this, I hope on the panel we do this afternoon, an opportunity to make some fresh arguments as well, which should be arguments about the other things that are holding people and countries back from being prosperous. And the truth is if we look around the world, those countries that have made the leaps from poverty to success tend to have institutions that actually include people in development. And so we need to be franker and tougher about our work in tackling corruption, in supporting good governance, in supporting the rule of law, in backing democratic institutions and in saying these things matter. They are what I call the golden thread of helping countries move from poverty to wealth. And as Britain is keeping our promises on aid, and aid is important in helping countries develop, we should have some very frank and very clear conversations about these other things too. But I don't wanna entrench on the work that this panel is gonna be doing this afternoon. Can I thank you again for a very warm welcome and I thank Klaus again for welcoming me to Davos for my eighth visit, and I wish you a very successful and happy conference. Thank you very much indeed.