 Well, good evening everybody. Thank you for coming. What a splendid location for a dinner. A dinner to focus on Britain's industrial future, our industrial strategy. Thank you all for coming. Can I particularly thank my good friends and colleagues at Tata for their support for tonight's dinner? It is greatly appreciated. This dinner comes ahead of the publication next month of a new CBI report on industrial strategy. A strategy we passionately believe needs to be at the centre stage for the UK to win the growth challenge it faces. Now you'll be hearing in a few minutes from Dr Ralph Speth, chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, about his company's remarkable transformation. In what has occasionally been gloomy years, JLR has been one of the rays of sunshine and offered hope for what can be achieved with the right backing, the right vision and the right leadership. Now we'll also hear more a little later from Vince Cable about his vision for industrial strategy for key sectors and how this is being taken forward across government. And what's important to me about this evening's dinner and there are a number of guests from the government and indeed from Her Majesty's opposition here tonight is this is about a new partnership. The industrial strategy is potentially a new partnership between business and government and the wider political establishment to strengthen Britain's industrial competitiveness. Now Vince in his speech at Imperial College only last week said, quote, we can have an industrial policy by default or by design. That phrase really struck home for me. I'm passionate in believing it's time for the latter. Let's have an industrial strategy by design. There's a long way to go. I think we've plenty to discuss this evening around the tables. So thank you both key speakers for contributing to this evening's event. Since I've been director general of the CBI, I've spoken often about the extent of the economic imbalances which were allowed to build up during the boom years before the financial crisis. What we thought was a fairytale disguised something rather less impressive. In the decade leading up to the crisis, growth was pretty much wholly dependent on government and consumer spending and owed very little to business investment. As for trade, well sadly it's 14 years since it made a positive net contribution to growth. Turning this round is at the very heart of the CBI mission, but it's a shift that's proven harder than first hoped with problems in the euro zone giving confidence, a walloping and holding back investment and the chasing consumers with higher inflation and less disposable income than many of us had anticipated. Here in the UK I think we will see a gentle return to growth over the winter building pace next year, but let's be honest with the economy still well below its peak. We need determined action and we can take action to add momentum to that recovery. This is where a new approach to industrial strategy is so important. A joined up strategy that works across government and gets all parts of government working in the same direction, be it the Treasury, be it DEC, be it DEFRA, be it the National Health Service and others, including importantly but not solely the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. It's a strategy which I think is relevant to any of the internationally tradeable sectors of our economy. That artificial divide of the past between manufacturing and services is as you know far better than I increasingly blurred and it's in the extended value chains that bring our designers, our suppliers, our service innovators and our manufacturers together where we need to work to secure growth. We need to play to our strengths and we need to make the UK a world leader in those areas where we choose to compete. Now the motto of the honourable artillery company where we're gathered tonight I think sets the tone perfectly for this debate. Accept no compromise, be the very best. But first let's tackle the understandable skepticism that arises as soon as we even mention the words, industrial strategy. Are we talking about something that is of the past and meant to be of the past? We suffer the lessons of the past in this debate. I think there are three compelling reasons why a modern industrial strategy is necessary for our new approach to growth. First, more than ever at this moment business needs confidence to invest and that confidence is very fragile. A new industrial strategy that works with government and consistently for the long term can I think be the next step in rebuilding confidence. If we get it right it'll help to stimulate sustained investment and business can thrive as a result. But a new strategy will have to provide focus for at least 10 years ahead to make a difference. So it has to survive beyond the next general election. Businesses like Tata and JLR investing in steel and automobiles regularly plan for horizons of 10 to 20 years hence. For colleagues in aerospace or nuclear planning 20 or 40 years ahead is the normal. Our knowledge intensive service companies are investing long term in innovation to stay ahead of those who would commoditise their current offerings. My second reason why I think this is a modern and relevant strategy is we shouldn't think that the global industrial playing field is a level one. Our rivals are already busy pursuing their own national strategies. Consider how Germany has boosted its green technology industries through matching policies that stimulate demand with bold backing for long term investment in technology and skills. Singapore has courted major companies to settle there and act as anchors for the country's export drive. As many of you know the investment arm of Singapore's Economic Development Board spends 10 times as much per capita as we're able to fund through the equivalent part of UKTI. And the US has used its defence agency DARPA and other mission driven outfits to stimulate innovation to make public procurement spend act as a pull factor for growth. The small business innovation research programme in the US is six times higher than our equivalent SBRI programme in the UK even when you rescale for the size difference between our two economies. And similarly the UK has to be an attractive place for businesses to innovate and invest. An industrial strategy can help put the spotlight on challenges faced by business when they're looking to grow and ensure that the UK is internationally competitive. My third reason to look at industrial strategy now is to give our national growth strategy another boost. In years of unspectacular GDP growth we need to do everything we can to help George Osborne's march of the makers whether in the manufacture or the service sector making that national growth strategy more targeted more granular and more emphatic. By and large the emphasis over the last few years has been on the horizontal policies, understandably so acting across sectors in areas like skills, infrastructure and trying to remove red tape. All of this is essential to get right as part of the underlying business environment. But on their own I would argue not sufficient to realise the UK's industrial potential. I think we need to go further and use all the tools in the industrial policy toolkit. We need to tilt policies carefully to help us get maximum returns ensuring we capitalise on every significant opportunity and lay the capability foundations that will secure future growth. Easy to say, what do I mean? Let's just take the new super material graphene as an example of what this could mean. We've got a world leading position following some stunning research in our universities. The applications for the materials use are many and varied so it makes sense to encourage further research as a horizontal issue. But we also need to translate graphene research into real life applications with high value, economic value. This means focused activity in a few areas biting the bullet on some hard choices relevant to aerospace, to automotive, to energy, to electronics. I think we need to target to make a difference. Ensuring the UK is a go-to place for large-scale development activity as well as a go-to place for research. Other good examples of how policy can be tilted include regulations designed with business to help stimulate demand. For example, helping to make green solutions visible earlier, viable earlier. Skills policy can be aligned better with industrial need. For instance, facing up to the chronic under supply of professional engineers in many of those key sectors which best illustrate the industrial strategy opportunity and how we can turn that round. Wider government risk sharing with initiatives such as launch aid need to be made available to industries with long-term plans for transformation. Public procurement needs to be more open to dialogue with business to suggest innovative solutions early on with the government engaging better with industry to discuss future UK capacity and capability requirements as it's now indeed beginning to do so. I also think we need to make sure that good policy initiatives have a chance of being developed further rather than being one-off ideas before we move on to something else. I'm thinking in particular with some enthusiasm of the current supply chain development initiative set to last just a year with a budget of 125 million. Now, this is great, but if we want lasting results we need to learn the lessons of this pilot and build on them. This is an important area to focus on and we need to stick with it. I think it's one of the most 21st century elements or pillars of a modern industrial strategy. Achieve that and we can start to see the necessary investment in skills, performance improvement, innovation and physical capital our key supply chains require and deserve. It's about investing now and for a sustained period to grow the capabilities we need to secure our industrial future. These are tangible investments that will pay dividends for many years to come. So that's the first strand of a new approach having the determination to aim for world class and to build up our industrial capabilities what you do day in, day out in your companies but wearing a UK PLC hat with more emphasis on tilting policy to improve its impact. The second strand and you'll be pleased to know there are only two strands is where we choose to focus that effort. That's where we come to our areas of competitive advantage and where we welcome what the Secretary of State had to say last week about the need to develop sector partnership strategies. I think a new industrial strategy needs to work with the grain of business to capitalise on our areas of relative advantage not spreading resources thinly but working with sectors that have determination to succeed pursuing opportunities for exports, investments and jobs and developing core value chains for the long term. The work the CBI has been doing has already estimated that we can boost exports by something of the order of 30 billion a year in a decade's time if we can get this sector approach and the tilting factors matching right. If we target our attentions on key sectors already going in the right direction and make real inroads in high growth export markets. So what sectors am I talking about? Well they're not all in manufacturing although many are. I certainly have on my hit list creative industries knowledge intensive business services as well as aerospace, automotive, chemical and pharmaceutical, agri-food and green technologies and services. For each we need a specific action plan developed by the industry itself. Plans that set out priority measures that will make a difference in the short, medium and long term. Now Ralph will be able to tell us about automotive and the value and supply chains it can and will develop with the right policies behind it. So let me pick another example. Let me just choose chemicals. What I want to emphasise here is that point about value chains. Almost everything we use or make in the UK traces somewhere to the chemicals industry. It starts off right back in the research base in industry universities and in our research and technology organisations. It involves some of the most productive and energy efficient process industry and chemical businesses in the world based here in the UK. We see the final value in the composite materials we need for modern aircraft, the high-tech lubricants for cars like the Jaguar XJ on show here tonight, for the coatings to protect wind turbines from corrosion at sea and the ingredients we need from cosmetics to construction products to cancer-killing pharmaceuticals. A specific action plan for the chemical sector must include a commitment to make the UK energy cost competitive, action on skills to ensure the graduate chemical and process engineers needed for the future and action to support cattle investment in the next generation of plant and facilities. Each sector plan may have cross-cutting similarities, but there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach here. That's what's different about a sector strategy as part of an industrial strategy. One of the recurring themes we see is the returns that can be made from effective business leadership and coordination. The leadership council model trail blazed by the automotive council. Now the aerospace growth partnership. I find these notions of leadership compelling. They need replicating more widely to help businesses map out future opportunities and challenges and help government understand the priorities and then act upon them. Overarching these plans, we've already set out some broad principles for industrial strategy, proactive engagement with business, alignment of policy across all parts of government and the need, challenging as it is, in a modern and vibrant democracy for some form of political consensus that straddles beyond elections and changes of government. The strategy is only any good if it gets implemented. What we're asking for is transformational in terms of how government engages with business. In the commercial sector, chains like this would be driven by a chief operating officer, I guess, and we think there's room for a similar post to coordinate and deliver this strategy across government. One individual charged with ensuring policies are delivered consistently. An individual with the presence and power to bring people into line when necessary. Someone, probably, but not necessarily from business, who can drive an unremitting focus on delivery and instill a mindset amongst policymakers that starts with the thought, how can we make this work for business and growth? There's still much more to be done to make a new industrial strategy work and if what matters in government is what gets measured, we shouldn't be afraid to set some tough international benchmarks to judge our progress against. Let's aim to get in the world top 10 on measures such as government procurement of advanced technologies and PISA's education rankings and lead tables on the quality of our infrastructure and we're not there at the moment on how competitive we are on energy costs just to choose for. Right now, if on these and many others we operated a straightforward traffic light system, well, there wouldn't be that many greens and there'd be some red and flashing amber. But we need to be aware of where we can improve if we're to turn those lights into green. I want to be absolutely clear, this is as much a challenge for the CBI and the business community as it is for our friends and colleagues in government. That's why I'm glad we have such respected figures from all parts of that supply chain here tonight. I hope this is the period we'll look back to in 20 years time and say that was when the corner was turned. That was when digging deeply to find new ways to nurture and nudge growth. We accepted no compromise and that's when we secured our industrial future. Thank you very much.