 But this time last year, the really big issue on all of our minds was the anticipated announcement of the conference's spending review. Horror stories abounded, cuts in the science budget of 20 or 25 or 30% were risked to the rumor mill. Speaking on this stage, against that background, Jolstin Bellner now gave us three good pieces of advice, so good that they still hold true. I'm going to rehearse them again now. As I said, first, be passionate about the cause we're making. It's about a vision for the future of our country, not just a special interest argument for science. Second, never give up. Even if the outcome of the conference's spending review is what we fear, rather than what we hope, keep speaking out for the case for science. There will be other opportunities. Third, stick together will make a much stronger public case for science and engineering by speaking with one voice and highlighting the overall benefits rather than rushing to criticize other areas of research. Well, by and large, we did speak with one voice, and we did focus on the case for investment in science as a key force to drive renewed economic growth. I'm certain that these factors contributed to the successful outcome for science by helping David Welles and his colleagues make a convincing case that the Treasury start changing. Now, of course, I recognize that a flat settlement for science now sees perhaps a little less miraculous than it did on the morning of 20th October last year. We started to see the impact of inflation on real levels of funding with a lack of capital for major new investment, but we'd be very foolish to forget that a time when the UK is making police officers redundant, scrapping around the aircraft carrier and closing public libraries, that science has survived remarkably well in an incredibly tough environment. On a Monday this week, the Chancellor announced new support for science, 195 million investment in both graphic research and supercomputing, an explicit recognition of the role science can play in economic growth. So I think all of us would like to thank you, David. As a community, we owe a big vote of thanks to you and your team, so thank you. But that doesn't mean that we should forget Jocelyn's remaining message, keep speaking out for the case for science of the other years and other opportunities. We know that public funds are under huge pressure. We're not looking for miracles now, but if the government shares our view that research excellence can restore Britain's economic vibrancy, why not make a firm commitment for the future to renewed investment in the science base? What a strong positive signal that was sent out to our young scientists and engineers about their future prospects here in the UK.