 Dwi'n cael ei weld. Yn ymddangos, yma. Roedden i chi am ddim yn fath Chaslur. Yw Torstem yn ei ddweud yna, y Gweithran yn ymweld i Gweithran yn eu fynd yma, gyda'r cymdeithas o'r rhagleniaeth, ymlaen i Gweithran. Ymlaen i'r cymdeithas, ymlaen i Gweithran, Pan-ni? Felly mae'r rhagleniaeth yma, a'r hynny'n cymdeithu i'r gweithio? Ymlaen i'r gweithio... Elin. Rydym yn ddweud o'r cyflawn, ond yn ymddangos i'r ddweud, ond yn gyflawn o'r cyflawn. Mae'r hoddau'r cyffredin o'r hoddau, ond mae'n ymddangos i roi wneud. Rhywbeth yma, roeddwn i gweithio 15 yma. Rhywbeth yma o'r cyffredin o'r cyflawn o'r cyffredin o'r cyffredin yn ffynasol. Yn llwynt ffynasol o'r ffynasol, gynhyrch yn ôl i'r cyffredin, yma'r gwybodaeth yma yn ffynasol o'r cyffredin. Ierladau mynd i'w adrwyddo gwybod diwrnwch. Phi oherwydd i fod yn mynd i'w adrwyddo'r adrwyddo'r adrwyddo gwybod, ond credu yn ysgol yraed o'r ddweud ar gyngor. Felly, rydyn ni'n ddweud fadeb chi sy'nicion, o fwy gennym hwn yn rhan o'r gwerthiaeth ar yw mynd i'r adrwyddo, i hefyd, yn ysgol yr adrwyddo fod yn ddweud unig. Roedd ddweud yn ysgol o'r adrwyddo? Reddyn nhw'n dysgu'r走bwynt o'r adrwyddo. First of all, I haven't read this from cover to cover because I'm only being published this morning, but I have read a summary of it, and I think it's a really interesting report that's asking all the right questions, but I think I fundamentally and profoundly disagree with Torston's view that the great advantage of doing badly, which I just heard him use those words, things going wrong, ignores the context. Mae'n meddwl i'r rhaglau fynd i'r cyfrifysgau ffynanc ar y Second World War, a i'r rhaglau ffynanc arall, a oherwydd mae'r rhaglau. Dyma'r 2010, mae'n rhan o'r rhaglau gael yn gwneud o'r ddechrau ym Llyfr ym Ffain, Portugal, ym France, Ietaly, ym Netholwn, Austria, Ym Gwaith, Japan. Yn effeithio, mae'r rhaglau'r rhaglau yn ôl i'r rhaglau ar y ddechrau. Mae'n rhaglau'r rhaglau gael yn gwneud o'r rhaglau. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i dda i'r tyfnod yma yw'r unrhyw ymddangos ymlaen nhw, ac mae'n gweithio'r gwahodau? Ychydigon ni'n gallu llwyddo'r cyflwyno dyma yn y bryd yma yn y gweithio sydd ymddangos yw'r cyflwyno. Rydyn ni'n gweithio i ddwylo'r llwyddo'r cyflwyno, ac mae'n gweithio i'r cyflwyno. Rydyn ni'n gweithio i ddau'r cyflwyno, ond rwy'n gweithio'r cyflwyno'r cyflwyno. y dylai'r ystyried o'r llyfr yn ymlieg. Mae'n gwybod ychydig o'i myfyrdd. Mae'r amser yn unrwyng ychydig? Mae'r amser yn ymlieg, ychydig, yw'r cymrydau. Mae'n cymrydau, ac mae'r cymrydau, ac mae'n cael ei wneud o'r bwysig yma, mae'r cymrydau yma, a'r cymrydau a'r cymrydau. Felly, mae'r cymrydau am y cymrydau yn y rhan o'r cwm ymlaen. Mae'r cymrydau yma eich cymrydau. Mae hwn i'w gwahanol o'r iawn gwahod nifer a'r ffwrdd yno diant iawn am gweithio a pholw Odysgau Llywodraeth yma, ond rwy'n meddwl eich bwysig yn ryebethio a'r hollwch cyhericalenau yn y rhywbeth, a wnaeth o'r bobl beth o Meyrddol o'r bobl bethau Llywodraeth a Lafriaeth, oherwydd cyflogaethol. Oherwydd o'r 109 hefyd, yma'n lle ei gweithio i'w beth o'r舒llwyr yn y Br sunnyf, That is about half the gap with the está instantitio a the countries we like to compare ourselves to, but if you take Germany, France and America, they invest about 2% of GDP more than we do every year. Those measures, including full-expensing, but not just full-expensing, the reforms to the planning system, the increasing access to the grid for clean energy projacks, Mae'r cyfrannu cyfrannu jyfrinwyr ar y cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu'n cyfrannu. Mae'r cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu yn 20 bilion o'ch ddweud arall, i'r gafnod Cymru yn ymwybodol. Yn y ffysgol yma, rydw i'n mynd i'n fryd i'n gwybodol. Rydyn ni'n gweithio a chyfrannu cyfrannu. Felly, nid oeddwn i gyd, rydyn ni'n gwybodol, rydyn ni'n gwybodol i'r gafnod, ac rydyn ni'n gwybodol i'n gwybodol i'r gwybodol. yn Majesty because if I was going to choose one country in the world I had the most untapped potential to become the most prosperous 21st century economy it would be Britain and why is that because first we are very good at introspection and this is a very good example of that so, we do ask ourselves the searching questions, but most of all because the sectors that are gonna grow the fastest this century are the sectors where y llantech oherwydd roedd ymlaen gwyntio ddod i'r cyfnodau a'r cyfnodau sy'n ei gyrraedd, yn ymletliad i'r cyfnodd, a dweud y cyfrifftdraeth. Mae'r cyfrifftdraeth i'r cyfrifftdraeth a'r cyfrifftdraeth sy'n ymletliad a'r cyfrifftdraeth ar gyfer ymylwedd ac yn ddidd mennygau'r cyfrifftdraeth. Mae'r cyflwgr yn sôn more yn oed ar fwyaf. Felly, cyfrifftdraeth yn ddidd bydd ymletliad, mae'n gwybod yn besiwyd ac yn lle'r cyfrifftdraeth the Nates, and not mention Big Bang and the City of London, which has gone on to be an area of global leadership for the UK. You'll be ignoring the sector whose taxes now fund half the cost of the NHS, because that's what financial services do. So I think you have to think about technology, AI, life sciences, clean energy, creative industries, because those are the sectors that are going to be really important for us going forward. Felly, maen nhw'n meddwl ym mhwynt yw'r sydd yn ei wneud, a gwnaeth yn ymgyrchiau wrth gael. Rydw i'r fawr, mae'r 110 meisio'r gwneud yw'r un ffrindleig. Rydw i'n gallu ffyrdd ymddangos, rydw i'n meddwl ffyrdd ymgyrchiau ymlaen. Mae'r fanesol o'r Ffandio hwn yma, yw ymgyrchiau'r ymgyrchiau. Felly, er nesaf i ffocifio'r ymgyrchiau ymlaen, mae'r astagol iawn, ac ymgyrchiau ar gyfer ymgyrchiau. Mae yna'r Gymru Cyfnod Dydigol ar y gyferlai Llyl Simplyr. Mae'n fwyfyrdd o'r llawd gyferlai ddau. Mae'n gweithio cyflau yma. Mae'n gwneud bod mwy o'r cyflau. Gwbod am ychydig eithaf, newid y Llyfr功od y Gwyd! Felly, gweithio'r gweithio. Mae'r drwsid trwy ffwyaf yma. Mae'n brosid drwsid drwsid ddau. Ddwy'r drwsid drwsid. Rhywbeth gwestiwch yn yn credu o'r cyfridg yma built piece is investment of that at why we have full and service and the I had this because 20 billion pounds of make this second blue you've got a price clear yes I wear are competitive advantage yes and a country which has got outside the United States the most respected higher education sector outside the United States. The biggest financial service sector. Are strength is innovation industries and that is where if we are cyfffacelliad, yn ynnhau o gweithio cyfbusiwn oed yn fwylo hwnnw o'r tym ni, yng Nghymru sydd nes yw'r Sefydlev. Mae wirionedd gyda llwyddoedd fel yng Nghymru yw Llywodraethol yw'r bron amgylch! I should add into productivity, it's not just business investment, it's also skills, which is why the Prime Minister's plan for teaching people maths to 18 is really important because 15% of our school leavers leave school without the necessary maths skills. It's only 8% in Singapore. We need to close that gap. I think you would find a lot of commonality with the work you've just laid out in the report. You've focused on the need for more investment private and public. We'll get to public in a second. Abertaeth y bydd yn cyfrifio y bwysig, y cyfrifio'r cyfrifio ymddangos i gael y cyfrifio, rwyf yn gweithio, yw'r cyfrifio cyfrifio, ac mae'n gweithio'r 3 styrs o'r gael. Felly felly mae gyrtwch, dwi'n gweithio'n gweithio. Fy o gyrddwch y bydd yn cyfrifio, mae yna hwn yn cyfrifio'r cyfrifio ymddangos i gael y bydd. Rwy'n gweithio y bydd. Yn cyfrifio y bydd y bydd yn cyfrifio? Yn cyfrifio y bydd yn cyfrifio y bydd? Well, lots of things, but let me give you three. First of all, labour supply. Most businesses find it hard to expand because they can't recruit the staff, and that's why we have one million vacancies in the economy. We have six million adults of working age who are not in work, and that's why we announced in the autumn statement some very big labour market reforms, welfare reforms that are designed to bring many of those people would like to come back into work, and we need to have a system that doesn't write people off if they have an illness or a disability that says the first thing we're going to do is try and treat you, which is why we're going to be funding a lot more people to do talking therapies, helping half a million people with mental health conditions because that's an increasing reason why people are leaving their jobs, so that would be one of them. Another is a total overhaul of our planning system, so we said that, you know, what local council says that they don't have enough planning staff and we need to remove cost as an issue for them, so we've said that local authorities, when it comes to business planning applications, can charge their full cost, full cost recovery in return for which they must process an application within the statutory period, and if they don't, they have to give the money back and still process it at high speed, so that's a very big one. And then the third one, because clean energy is such a big part of our transformation, we're going to have to double the amount of electricity that we generate as a country. We totally transformed the way businesses are going to be able to access the national grid because one of the things that's holding back clean energy investment is people are being told they have to wait 14 years for a grid connection and we're going to shrink, I think we're going to reduce the delays by 90% as a result of what I announced. So those are all really impressive changes, I think across the board people would probably applaud them, but they are new approaches from the government and one of the challenges I think for businesses has been the frequency and speed with which policy changes. It's unbelievably volatile, I'm going to quote now from the report, lower level instability since 2010 has included nine business secretaries, four versions of the business department, too many industrial strategies or growth plans to count, corporation taxes changed almost annually. How can, and we've had the same party in power and there's been that much change, how worrying and you must deal with this day in, day out. Do you recognise the sense that volatility and policy uncertainty is a problem? And how do you guard against that? We've got an election coming, but let's just assume that you are in power for the next five years. How do you get a plan in place that people can say, right, we're sticking with this? Well, I think there's a very particular reason why we've had that political chopping change. I don't think it's a good thing. By the way, you're talking to the, as you know, the longest serving health secretary. I was there for nearly six years and I think there are enormous benefits to ministers staying in their posts for a long period of time. But we had Brexit that led to a hung parliament that led to a politically incredibly challenging time where the British people have voted to leave the EU, but parliament couldn't agree on how and ultimately to the fall of Theresa May's government. And then we had a pandemic. And these things have led to changes in Whitehall. I hope we can have more stability going forward, absolutely, because I think it is a better thing for policy. So that's the political side. What about the institutional side? As you know, we wrote a big piece about the Treasury recently arguing that actually the Treasury, while it has many strengths, was perhaps institutionally a problem for growth because it was short termist. How much do you recognise that analysis? I think that the, you know, I generally find myself agreeing with most of what you write in the Economist. But that one I thought didn't, I thought it was a fair point historically. So I think the Treasury has been historically first and foremost an accountant determined to make sure the books balance, which is very important in the international markets because, you know, people have to know we're good for our debts and we pay lower debt interest rates as a result of the confidence people have. But I think the Treasury since I've been there, by the way, it's not because of me, but my impression of the Treasury since I've been there has been a very growth focused organisation. And, you know, they started the day after the spring budget, we started working on the autumn statement. I said this is going to be an autumn statement on growth and very specifically unlocking business investment. That is what, that is the thing that we are going to try and crack in the autumn statement. And I think they did an absolutely superb job. So I think that now I think if you, you know, if you looked in the Treasury there is an understanding of the centrality of growth to what they do. Now some people say you should remove the responsibility for growth to another government department, perhaps have a department for economics or something like that, which other countries do. I would say that the problem with that is that in any political system ultimately power resides where the money is. And you don't want the department that's responsible for growth to have to negotiate for its budget every year with the Treasury. At the moment when there's something that's really important for growth such as, you know, securing the Gigafactory in Somerset that JLR Land Rover, Tata, announced. You know, I think it's very important the Chancellor thinks that's my job to make sure we secure this kind of investment for the UK. And so I think there are very big advantages in having that responsibility for growth where the money is. So you want a powerful Treasury but one that is focused on growth? Absolutely. What about then public investment? And this is a gathering of largely economists so they weren't mind me focusing so much on investment because as the report says it's completely integral. And public investment, 20% of total investment, the report says public investment should increase dramatically towards the 3% of GDP. They're saying should become the norm. If you look and I, you know, the only thing we have to go on for your plans for the next five years where you to have them would be the autumn statement. And if you look there, you actually have real public investment declining. Is it sensible to have declining public investment? I don't think you want declining public investment. And I very much hope we'll be able to get back into a place where we don't have to do that. But I think it's also important to say to Annie that in 2020 the capital budget, which is the closest proxy you have to public investment, went up by its highest ever level by 21% from £70 billion to £100 billion. So we are now spending in terms of public capital spending £30 billion a year more in real terms. But it's still, you know, it's risen as a share of GDP but you've got it on a trajectory that's gone up and it's then going to go down. Well, hang on. Let's just explain exactly what happened. So in that 2020 budget when Rishi Sunak was Chancellor, it was the biggest ever increase. Now I then had to balance the books a year ago. It was an incredibly difficult situation. But it was necessary for the markets and it was necessary for the battle against inflation. So what I chose to do was to freeze that capital budget in cash terms, which is not a freeze in real terms. I hope as soon as we can afford to, we can get back to real terms growth. But I'm absolutely committed to public investment. And I think the evidence I would give you, if I may, that we are committed to public investment, was that, as everyone knows, we had a very big challenge with HS2 and the project was going wrong. Now I think in previous eras, if the Treasury had lived up to what you were describing in the article about it in The Economist, we would have clawed that money back to help balance the books in other areas. But actually every single penny of that 36 billion that we save from not proceeding with HS2 is being put into other capital projects. So we are absolutely committed to investment in the public realm. And I think the way, how do you get there? You get there by unleashing the growth in the economy more broadly. And that's what I was trying to do in the autumn statement. Let's sort of stand back a bit because this is a report written in 2030. And you have in, as Chancellor, at least on the public finances, you have a few levers, right? You've got taxes and you've got spending. And between spending you've got current spending and you've got capital spending. And I'm crudely simplifying, but basically you have cut taxes. You're going to have public current spending falling very dramatically after 24, 25. And you've got net investment going down too. What do you think is the right approach? You said you want more public investment. Does that mean you want to have even bigger cuts in current spending or do you want higher taxes? Because you can't have all three. Well, you can have all three if you do them in the right order. And I think it's wrong to say, it's wrong to just describe the package of measures that I did as cutting taxes without saying what those taxes were cut for. So I did two major tax cuts in the autumn statement. One was introduction of full expensing, which the CBI said was a game changer that was going to fire up the British economy, gives us the most competitive capital allowances. All the countries that Torston were talking about that invest more than we do, none of them have as competitive a regime as we do. And just to underline the significance of that measure, Rishi Sunak announced a precursor of that in, I think, 2021, with a super deduction. I then continued it with temporary full expensing for three years in the spring budget. It's now permanent full expensing. Since we started on this journey, since Rishi Sunak started on this journey, business investment has grown by more in this country than America, France, Germany, any of the countries in Torston's list. So that's one tax cut. The second tax cut was the cut in national insurance, which the OBR themselves say will bring 94,000 people back into the workforce full-time equivalent. That is equivalent to filling one in ten of the vacancies across the whole country. That is a totally pro-growth tax cut. So how do we invest in the public realm? How do we make sure that our public finances match up? It's by getting the country growing. And this is a strategy. These are tax cuts that will stimulate growth. Not in my words, but in the words of the CBI, the OBR and other independent commentators. So I want to get our horizons to 2030 again. Because I'm mindful that the report makes very clear that you need a broad strategy. Am I unfairly summarising you? Because I've heard you say basically Britain was hit by shocks that others were. So kind of not our fault. Now we're going to have a strategy that is tax cuts and as much public investment as we can afford. But nothing fundamentally different. You don't see a need for any sort of bigger, broader policy changes of the scope that this lays out. Well, I think that is a mischaracterisation. Is it? Okay, good. It is. I mean, you're ignoring the fact that we made some very, very big changes in the autumn statement. Giving us some of the most competitive business taxes in the world. And you're characterising tax cuts as a strategy in isolation. I do believe in tax cuts. I'm a conservative. I would like to reduce the size of the status of a portion of GDP. But the tax cuts that I'm doing are pro-growth tax cuts that are going to fire up the British economy. And, you know, I think what I've done is something that will be transformative in terms of our productivity, which is exactly what this report is arguing. I mean, you know, the report is also very powerful in talking about the regional inequality that we have in this country. The fact that the productivity gap between London and Manchester is 40% when it's only 20% between Paris and Lyon. And the levelling up strategy is square on designed to deal with that. And since we started that in 2019, two-thirds of all new employed jobs have been outside London and the southeast. So I think that is beginning to have an impact. But are there more things we can do? Absolutely. I think in every fiscal event I've done, I've demonstrated that I'm prepared to do big new things, whether it's the childcare measures in the spring budget or full-expensing in this budget, that will help transform our growth prospects. Just a couple more questions for me, and then questions from you. So do get ready, because there are people wandering around with microphones. One on planning. You laid out some very ambitious planning reforms in the autumn statement. You said very clearly that you think that's an important part of faster growth. But your party seems to be increasingly opposed both to whether it's new pylons or solar farms or indeed house building. Can you credibly say that the Conservative Party is the party of growth, given those factors? Well, every party has to manage its own parliamentary party, sometimes getting through measures that are not popular. But look at our track record. In the last year for which we have house building numbers, which is the year before, well, it's the year ending March 22, we had more new homes completed than in any single year under the previous Labour government. So we have seen a big increase. But what we've also seen over the last five to seven years is increasingly strong environmental protections. And we have got to find a way of getting the balance right between those two. And so we will continue to find ways to reform the planning system. We are going to see more clean energy projects in our natural landscapes if we're going to double the amount of electricity we generate. That's a choice that we make as a country with the right thing to do for the planet as well as for the economy. So we are going to see some changes. But I think that what I would say is the planning measures that we announced in the autumn statement alone are going to unlock £9 billion of annual additional investment. So I think they were very significant. One more complete different track benefits. One of the powerful messages of this report is that it is the combination of slow productivity growth and high inequality. And one of the things that has clearly really hit incomes at the bottom of the income distribution have been the changes in benefits that have come over the last 12 years. Do you think, would you agree with the report in arguing that there needs to be a fundamental change there for this to be inclusive growth? I totally agree that it needs to be inclusive growth. And I haven't read the specific bits in that report. I would say this though about what has actually happened. If you look at the part of which group of people in the economy have seen their post tax real incomes grow the most since 2010. It's not the people at the top. It's not the people at the very bottom. It is the people who are working full time on the national living wage. They have seen the threshold at which they start to pay tax or national insurance double. They have seen the national living wage go up massively and it's gone up again in the autumn statement. That group of people has actually seen their post tax real income increase by 30% since 2010. It's a huge increase and why is that? Because we want to incentivise people to get back into work those 6 million adults who are not working. In terms of the poverty impact the people in absolute poverty after housing costs has gone down since 2010 by 1.7 million people including 400,000 children. That is because we have reduced work-less households. I think they are all connected. I do passionately think we need to be an inclusive society in which everyone has a share in growth. But if you look at some of the societies that are often characterised as being more equal, someone like the Netherlands for example, they actually have lower inactivity rates, higher employment rates. If we had the same number of women in work as they have in Holland relative to the size of the population, we would have 2 million more people in work in the UK. So we would have filled every vacancy in the economy twice over. It's worth reading that bit because they are pretty sobering statistics. Low income households in the UK are now 27% poorer than their French and German counterparts. That gap has widened over the last 13 years. You and I could go on for a long time, let's hear some questions from the audience. Yes, right there. Thank you very much. Jack Campbell, director of the campaign for the arts. Chancellor, the resolution foundation's report today agrees with the government that the creative and cultural industries are a main growth area of potential for the UK economy. The report says that the UK's creative strengths can be traced to cultural openness, high quality creative education and the role that public service broadcasting via both the BBC and Channel 4 has in shaping the market. Our research has found that there have been declines of 47% at GCSE and 29% at A level in creative subjects in England. And I notice in the news today there's talk of potentially further reductions in the funding of the BBC. My question to you is, you've said that you want to get growth up first to get public investment up second. Are you not concerned that these real declines including in public investment might actually be draining the fuel out of one of our key economic engines? First of all, I totally agree with the report that our innate creativity is why the creative industries is one of the five sectors that I've identified as being an area of national competitive comparative advantage. And it's interesting, in the last decade we've become the largest film and TV production centre in Europe. In fact, we may have already been that, but we've extended our lead over other European countries. And film and TV production in the last four years, I don't think there's any evidence of what you said because actually our studio space has gone up by two thirds. Netflix alone has spent £6 billion in the UK. And we have attracted those industries here because of very generous tax reliefs. But they can see that they can source the skills they need to make Barbie or Oppenheimer, both of which are made here. They can source those here. But I think the really interesting thing is that film and TV and creative industries have become an offshoot of the technology industry in the last decade because basically special effects is all about technology. And what you get in the UK is the tech skills and also the creativity come together. You've got a combination of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, which is absolutely incredible. We are absolutely backing them. I would never be complacent about skills. There's always more we can do. And I couldn't agree with you more about public service broadcasting being central to what makes the UK attractive. Thank you. Let's go somewhere in the back there. Yes. Hi, I'm Juliette from Christians Against Poverty. Our recent research has highlighted that we've got 9% of the UK population having debt. They don't know how to repay and we provide debt support and 50% of our clients have deficit budgets. So just wondering what support you're considering, which would help people in emergency crisis situations now to make sure that we don't end up with a debt crisis next. I think a couple of things. First of all, we're very concerned about people with mortgages as interest rates have gone up, ending up not being able to pay their mortgages. So I organised something called the mortgage charter, which 90% of lenders have signed or 90% of the market by volume has signed up to, which does things like guarantee that people will be given a year's grace before any repossession proceedings happen, enables people to move to a best possible deal at the last moment. And we're still seeing significantly few. I think repossessions are still a third the level they were just after the financial crisis. So I think it's having some impact. But I think the other thing any chancellor has to do in a fiscal event is ask what directly does you have. So one of the things that we did at the autumn statement was increase the local housing allowance, which is basically going to be an £800 grant to 1.4 million households, because we know rents going up is one of the biggest pressures on poorer households. So I think it's a balance of things. Thank you. Yes. Paul Swinney from the Think Tank Centre for Cities. Chancellor, you said that we have a real specialism in industries but have a productivity problem. My view would be that it's those innovative industries that are meant to push productivity on. So it's one of what your diagnosis is between the disconnect between specialised in these cutting edge sectors and yet still having a productivity problem. Well, I think there'll be lots of economists here who have studied what the definition of productivity is and will be more knowledgeable than I am about it. But I think my understanding on what drives productivity is, it's a combination of human capital, things like skills, which is why it's so important that we invest in our education system and why it's such a positive thing that educational standards are going up. It's a combination of business investment, whereas Torsten was telling you earlier we have traditionally lagged and that's what the autumn statement measures rule about. It's to do with regional disparities, which is why the levelling up agenda is so important. It's also to do with this thing called total factor productivity, which includes things like your ability to innovate. I think that we are very strong on that bit. We've been weaker on the capital investment side and for a long time, our education side, we've been very good on the sort of university educated half of school leavers, less good on the school leavers who don't go to university and I think that is now really changing. I think we've got time for a couple more. So yes, later there, four rows back. Five rows back here, that too. Francis Coppola, independent economist. Really a follow-on from the last question I wanted to ask about productivity. Much of the rhetoric that we've heard has been about getting more people into work, but I would like to remind you that getting more people into work is not the same as increasing productivity. So my question would be, given that the two particular policies you've highlighted in your discourse has been full-expensing, absolutely that's a good policy, and a cut to national insurance to get more people into work, what are your strategies for raising productivity rather than just increasing the size of the workforce? Well, the two are connected, but you know, 94,000 more, the workforce, the national workforce will increase by 94,000 as a result of the National Insurance Cup, which as I say is about one in ten of all vacancies. And how do we make sure that those people are able to work productively? It's by incentivising their employers to invest more in capital, plant, machinery, IT systems, so that each individual worker is generating more output. Germany has productivity 15% higher than us, so at the moment, broadly speaking, it takes Germans four days, or it takes a Brit five days to work. That isn't because Germans work longer hours or work harder, it's because by and large, German workers have more capital wrapped around them, more machinery, more plant, more automation, which means that they have higher productivity, so that's why introducing capital allowances, full-expensing, that is more generous than Germany's, is the way that we're going to see more investment alongside reforms to the planning system and other measures. So you need to do the two together. One more question. Yes, gentlemen there, the turquoise sweater. Thank you. Chancellor, I'm intrigued by our attitude to the economy. I don't want to touch on that with an analogy. If I think about the first session from Torsten, it's almost like he's described an economy that has a broken leg. And then I come to this session and it sounds like you're my chief surgeon who's telling me, I'm not sure you have a broken leg actually, maybe we don't need to do anything, or maybe we need to just carry on as is, or maybe we need to invest here or there. To what degree does our economy actually have a broken leg, and to what need do we need to repair it before we then have ambitions of prospering highly and running it to our marathon? That's a great analogy. And you are a marathon runner now. I'm trying to think of the perfect metaphor here. But look, I think it's really important not to lose our self-belief. And I think that we are one of the world's best and most brilliant countries at beating ourselves up because we have brilliant magazines like The Economist, who are good at putting us under a magnifying glass and identifying areas where... I'm not sure I describe it as a broken leg, but identifying areas where we can do better. And that is a very good thing for us that we do that. But sometimes we forget that other countries also have other things that they need to improve. You know, I've had conversations with European finance ministers who say they wish they could swap our education system for theirs because they look at our universities, four of the world's top 20, nowhere else outside America gets close to that. And you look at our technology industry, you look at our record on climate change where we've cut emissions by 49%, we've cut them by 23%. And so we've done lots of things really well. We should absolutely be honest about the things that we can do better. Our technical education for school leavers who don't go to university has come on leaps and bounds, but we need to go further. That's why we need people to be doing maths and English until they're 18. Our productivity is still behind France, Germany and the United States. We need a plan for that, which is what I announced. But what we shouldn't lose is the fact that, you know, despite lots of venerable magazines saying that we're going to hell in a handcart, we always confound expectations in this country and we always do far better than everyone says. And a year ago, all these experts were saying that the economy was going to contract. The OBR said it was going to contract by 1.4%. It's actually grown by 0.6%. That's a 2% difference in just one year. And I think we shouldn't lose confidence that we do some things absolutely amazingly. I know he's controversial in other ways, but, you know, when Elon Musk was here three weeks ago, he said there were only two centres in the world for AI, San Francisco and London. So this is a guy who, you know, is spending a lot of money on AI and knows about automation and, you know, he's done Tesla and he knows this stuff very, very well. So we've got a lot going for us. So if we're going to go into dealing with the sprained ankle rather than the broken leg, then let's do so from a perspective of positivity because we've got so much going for us. And I think we should, you know, have a little bit of optimism for the future because this is still got some of the most exciting prospects of any country in the world. Okay, so let's, as a last question, let's grant you that optimism. I like the sprained ankle analogy. What will this potential marathon running country with a temporarily sprained ankle look like in 2030? Just paint a picture of what, in the best possible case, where all the things that you would like to happen, get done, what does the country look like and what are the three or four things that you would need to do between now and then to get it there? Okay, well, the first thing is, you know, we have an election next year and we have to make the right choice at that election. And it's interesting because one of the things that you try to do is, you tried to suggest, I was saying, I know you don't really think I was saying it, Xanny, but it was a nice try. It was that I was trying to say it's fine to do more of the same. Absolutely not. We're making really big changes. But one of the things that we have won is, won back is a reputation for fiscal probity. And you're going to talk to Keir Starmer this afternoon. It is not possible to meet our fiscal rule to reduce debt in five years and to increase borrowing by £28 billion a year. One of those two has to be false. So I hope whatever the country decides next year, we do not relinquish our reputation for fiscal probity. And then what I would say is, and I think this is the bit where I totally agree with the economist analysis of what needs to happen in politics. It's really important that we're long-term. The benefits of those 110 measures, the £20 billion of business investment, they aren't scored by and large by the OBR because most of them will feed through not in five years, but within a decade. The full-expensing will increase by about £14 billion the investment in the next five years. But the real benefits will be because, companies like Toyota and Nissan say they want to build plants here because they can see the benefits in the medium and long-term, 10, 20 years' time. And I think that what really matters is that, despite all the political noise, Governments find the nerve to make the long-term changes, the really difficult changes that will make a difference. And that is what Rishi Sunak is absolutely committed to. It's what I'm absolutely committed to. And I think as long as we do that, then we have got the most amazing prospects in front of us. 2030 it will be the most amazing economy. I think it is possible we will hand over a fantastic economy to Labour in 2030, yes. OK, on that note, thank you very much, Chancellor.