 Thank you very much, Torsten, and thanks to everyone for being here today. So good morning and welcome to this panel where we're going to be talking about how to get growth up. We've already been talking about that a little bit this morning, so hopefully it will be nice to develop those ideas further. As we heard, the UK has many strengths and we set those out in the report at length, both in services, in innovation, in high value manufacturing, but we have had these problems converting those strengths into productivity and growth that is felt by people across the country. So we know that the autumn statement set out a number of measures which are positive in that regard on business investment. Many of those things are things we've talked about in our reports as well. But as Torsten said earlier, we can go further and we're going to hear today from our brilliant panel about how we can do that. So we'll talk about public investment, how can we raise its level, reduce its volatility, business investment, how can we incentivise firms and pressurise them to invest more in long-term value creation, trade policy, how can we shape that in a way that leverages our strengths and allows us to grow, and cities. How can we ensure that our cities can maximise their productive potential? So to do this, we'll hear from this brilliant panel of speakers. First we're going to hear from Emily Fry, who is an economist at the Resolution Foundation. She's going to take us through a summary of some of our key recommendations from the inquiry. And then we'll have responses from our distinguished panellists. First we'll hear from Dr Swati Dingra, who is an external member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, an Associate Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, and a colleague of mine. Also a member of the Steering Group for the Economy 2013 inquiry. Sadly, Swati will have to leave a bit early due to some Bank of England business. Then we'll be hearing from Tom Reardon, Chief Executive of Leeds City Council, where he's overseen a significant transformation of the council and the city, including the new Channel 4 headquarters. We talked about the importance of our creative sectors and the UK infrastructure bank. We talked about the importance of infrastructure. Then we'll hear from Dame Sharon White, Chair of the John Lewis Partnership, and previously the Chief Executive of Ofcom and Second Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. And finally we'll hear from Professor Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy and Co-Director of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, as well as the Director of the Productivity Institute that had its National Productivity Week last week. Okay, so it's a big topic and we have very little time, and sadly each speaker has only a few minutes, so let's hand over to you, Emily. Thank you, Anna. So this morning Torsten has convinced us that weak productivity growth is holding back Britain's living standards. Over the next few minutes, and I threaten a few more slides, I'm going to set out a plausible economic strategy to get growth up. First, we need to recognise what Britain's 21st century economy actually looks like. And second, we need to invest in our future rather than living off our past. When we talk about growth, some are unserious in wishing that we were a German-style manufacturing powerhouse. Spoiler, we're not. Others in thinking that we are just simply bankers, as we heard earlier, financial services have been actually falling as a share of our exports ever since the financial crisis. Instead, our route to prosperity is building on our strengths. And for that we need our domestic and our trade policies to be pointing in the same direction. But our approach to goods trade post Brexit is at odds with the stated commitment to advanced manufacturing. As you can see in this chart, exports of cars and chemicals are below their 2018 levels, performing the worst or second worst in the G7. This is because these key sectors have lost their frictionless access to EU markets. The defensive priority is now securing this EU market access for these advanced manufacturing firms who are struggling to maintain their role in EU supply chains. Tweaks will not address the fundamental issue of a lost EU-UK goods border. Instead, we need a UK protocol. This means building on the current position of Northern Ireland to restore the lost benefits of the EU's customs union and a single market for goods. But there is some real upside and growth potential in harnessing the UK's services specialisms in international markets. This chart shows us the good news that services Britain specialises in, like intellectual property, like creative services, and a range of professional services have tripled since 2005, growing while goods trade just doubled. Here too, the UK is much less dependent on the EU market. Therefore, we can go beyond our traditional goods focus free trade agreements. Instead, the UK should pioneer new services trade agreements, including elements like neutral recognition of professional qualifications with our key advanced economies, places like Singapore and Australia. But we have to be clear that this presents a challenge in that services exports and productive activity tend to be geographically concentrated. At the moment in the UK, that means in our capital city. Britain's twin second cities, Birmingham and Manchester, are far less productive than even the UK average. But with 2.8 million people each, they are also too big to fail, as Torston told us earlier. But these cities are absolutely miles away from functioning like the highly productive places that they should be. Everyone knows we need to level up, but plans fall far short of either fixing our unequal economic geography or getting growth up. To succeed, our cities need a city centre where productive services firms can operate at scale with sufficient housing for a larger, highly skilled workforce who are connected by mass transit to the central business district. For example, this chart shows that currently just half of graduates in Birmingham can get to the city centre in a reasonable commute under 45 minutes. To raise that by 100,000 graduates, Birmingham will need £5 billion of investment in buses and in a tram network, a minimum. To date, we haven't been serious about the scale of this ambition and this investment, which far surpasses any plans today for levelling up. It will also require local people to be empowered to act, and that means more fiscal devolution. And central government needs to do its bit too through public investment. But the major problem we have with public investment, as we've heard, is not only that it's too low, and that's especially given the needs of a net zero this decade. It's also far too volatile. As you can see in this chart, since the 1970s, public investment has been cut time and time again when Britain faces a downturn. This volatility forces departments to flip-flop on their investment plans and results in persistent underspends, even when they have the budgets allocated to do this investment. The results can be seen all around us. Britain has just half the number of MRI scanners per person as the typical OECD country. And we are falling behind on decarbonising our homes. To fix this, we need to reform our fiscal rules to secure public investment at 3% of GDP, but also the Treasury needs to switch its focus to improving the quality, not simply fiddling around with the quality of investment. Of course, that's combined, too, with the death of business investment, which has left our workers with far too little kit to work with, and too few ideas to implement. In fact, the lack of kit that's available to our British workers can explain all of the gap in productivity with our French peers. So what's going wrong? Well, many people love to talk and love to diagnose the UK with a lack of investable projects, but this chart shows that return on investment is not the problem. In the decade since the financial crisis, the UK has actually had higher returns on its investment than our peers like the US, like France, and like Germany. So although full expensing of plant and machinery that the Chancellor mentioned this morning is extremely welcome, we can't think that tax cuts means jobs done. So why is management not choosing to invest? Well, this chart shows us that the UK stands out among our OECD peers as having one of the lowest proportion of firms with blockholder shareholders. So that means those are big enough to want to and to be able to influence firms' decisions. It's a lack of willingness to invest that we should tackle. And to incentivise firms to do so, we should increase the pressure from above. So through a major programme of pension form consolidation, which we saw some early stages of in the autumn statement this year, but also from below. So we need to have workers have representation on these company boards to influence long-term planning. Our firms also need to be able to build. Half of investment is in business structures and we also need housing near our growing firms. As this chart shows, the UK is the only G7 country to have actually not seen an increase in the amount of built up land per capita since 1990. And if anything, we've seen a fall in built up land per capita this millennium. Some say that this might be because we're a dense country, but denser countries like Japan have been building in this time. And others suggest that we're really good at protecting our green spaces. But again, Germany has a higher share of protected land and has also been building. Indeed, the issue lies with the fact that 60% of English local authorities don't have an up-to-date land use plan in place at all. Every area must have a plan. It needs to take place at a functional economic level, and it needs to bind through the fiscal devolution we talked about. Our investment overall can also be made sustainable by the introduction of a new growth board. At the end of the day, though, this investment ultimately needs to be paying for, and that means it's either coming from overseas or higher domestic savings. As this chart shows, the UK's national savings rate is extremely low, the second lowest in the whole of the OECD. The savings rate of UK households is so low that once we've invested in housing, no funds are left for investment in our businesses. To increase household savings, we should start with a 50% increase in minimum pension contributions. Of course, higher investment also means that some consumption will fall, and so here the government must play a really important role in determining whose consumption that is. For example, who's playing which taxes, something that Lindsay will be addressing in our next session on inequality. In sum, this growth strategy forms the first pillar of an economic strategy for the UK. Get it right, we can harness our strengths, invest in our businesses and infrastructure, and set the UK up for a more sustainable and prosperous future. Thank you. Thank you so much, Emily, for setting out the key recommendations so clearly. Swatty, over to you to talk a little bit more about the role of a trade strategy and a growth strategy. Perfect. So, Torston's already called you a high productivity audience. I should also add from the faces that I can see from here, a very illustrious audience, and I should explain we're just entering the quiet period, my comments have been already published and available for if you want to see further. So, my response to the two and a half years of Economy 2030 inquiry today is going to be about what a trade strategy that delivers economic growth should look like. And this is not a new question, there's a long tradition of work. In fact, the building that we're all based in at the Centre for Economic Performance at LSE has recently, this year, been named the Sir Arthur Lewis Building. In his 1970s Nobel winning work, what Sir Arthur Lewis did was to think about what a trade strategy, how a trade strategy can be a part of a broader economic strategy to drive economic growth. So this is in that tradition of work. And since that time in the 1970s when he was writing about it, of course what's happened is that for the first time in half a century, UK has been tasked with setting its own trade strategy. And what does this strategy mean? It's very important because what it does is it gives families and firms, it shapes what they can buy from abroad, what must be produced domestically, what therefore happens to the content of jobs, productivity and ultimately living standards in the economy. And more importantly, it sets the plank for, it's a major plank of how Britain interacts with the rest of the world. What our international policy is at a time when there is heightened geopolitical tensions. So after Brexit, our UK trade policy response was very prompt. We signed trade agreements with over 90 countries that covers about 60% of trade. And since then, because the emphasis was on speed of negotiations, we relied on using tools, free trade agreements that are readily available. But free trade agreements are really about goods. And it doesn't really build on services which is the key comparative advantage of the UK. So the UK is a services superpower. I'm not saying that lightly, where the second largest exporter of services in the world and services are valued at over £400 billion in 2022. And services exports have been growing, as Emily has just shown, faster than goods exports for almost a decade. So the question then is, you know, are standard templates of trade agreements going to work and our argument in the enquiries trading up reporters that these standard templates for trade agreements don't really offer very material services liberalisation, largely because what that needs is regulatory cooperation internationally, which typically has taken much longer to accomplish. So as an example, even in the new deep agreement that we have with the European Union, there are many trade and investment restrictions that have come into place for many services items. And if we look at what happens to the exports of those services items to the EU versus the non-EU, there's been a 7% drop in that. So broadly, my key point is that we can make some policy improvements on that, on that front, but actually the big gains are going to be for the EU and other new trade partners to want to negotiate beyond this boilerplate access that standard trade agreements offer. And our optimistic view is that the UK is as a global leader in services well placed to innovate both on the method as well as on the content of signing these sorts of services trade agreements. So what should that provide us? The main message that we come up with is that there should be a regulatory framework that is set out for international cooperation and services. This is not just words, they're concrete ideas in the report ranging from prototypes, including some that Emily's mentioned, so the prototypes such as digital services agreement with Singapore, or the much more long standing regulatory cooperation council that the Canada-US relationship has. And because of this regulatory nature of how services trade agreements and international trade and services is done, what we also need to remember is that they'll have to be joined up policy making across government departments to ensure that the strategy that's formulated is consistent internally as well as fits in with the broader strategy for the economy. I'll sort of say one more point which is about goods trade. I think we just have to recognise that that's where the initial impact of Brexit has been most visible. And one of the longer term outcomes of frictions in goods trade with the EU could be that high value added manufacturing cars and chemicals that Emily showed could see somewhat of a reduction largely because they're very reliant on European supply chains and a bit of a boost to traditional low productivity manufacturing which now faces less competition from abroad. So that being said, we think that there are some sort of positives there in terms of thinking about very ambitious options like extending the Northern Ireland protocol to a UK protocol which would make it much more likely to be put on the EU negotiating agenda. There's also sort of interlinkages that would arise with industrial policy magnifying the growth impacts of that as well as being able to secure easier access to systemically important supply chains such as in microchips, food products. That being said, I'm going to quickly summarise by saying that there have been developments in geopolitics as well as industrial policies across the world. Therefore it's become even more important to have a coherent trade strategy that's become vital for enhancing economic growth as well as boosting living standards. And as a small open economy, we don't have quite the deep pockets that large trading blocks have and therefore what's really important now is to be able to do it through policy design to offer a regulatory comparative advantage to businesses, investors and trade partners. Thank you. Thank you, Swati. Over to you, Tom, to talk about the role of cities in getting growth up. Thanks, Anna, and really welcome the report. It's very consistent with the report that we just produced as the big cities of the UK with the RSA that Anna helped us with, showing that there's a £100 billion dividend if we can get those cities up to even the European average. I read the presentation this morning as being basically a failure of the most centralised state in the Western world. Anything that comes next has got to address that issue. Not only with the most centralised state, but we don't really have a coherent plan that brings together industrial strategy, infrastructure and the inequality issues. The only place you can do that, really, you can't do it from white hole. You've got to do it at the macro level, at that regional level and a strong local level. By focusing on cities, that's the way that you can make the biggest difference. The plan needs to be, to me, a shared one where the national state backs cities in a way they've never done before. It recognises the differences between them and the assets that they can bring to the table in the agenda that Torsten and Emily and others have set out. That means focusing on the strengths of London as the world financial capital. I think we can't have a debate about productivity without focusing on London. The London issue is mainly about housing and how we can make that happen and do it in a way where the strengths of the rest of the country complement what London has got. The fact that we have Channel 4, Bank of England, UKIB, Burberry Sky based in Leeds, all of whom are based in London, is a really big strength that we have together with our southern colleagues. We've got to make more of that and collaboration between the national, the regional, the local and between the public and the private sectors with academia has got to be the future because that's where the real sweet spot is in what's been talked about this morning. So, whether it's Sheffield's great strength in advanced manufacturing built on the steel city and the metal cutting techniques and the academics in Sheffield University and Boeing and McLaren and others coming behind that, whether that's graphene in Manchester, whether it's the NHS being based in Leeds where we've done work with Boston, MIT in Boston, Sydney Oslo and they've said to us why doesn't the UK make more of the fact that the NHS is based in Leeds and you've got the most health data scientists in Europe there. That's the sort of thing where we've got to have a shared common ambition and a shared agenda where resources as well realign behind those plans so at the moment we don't really have a productivity puzzle in the north I've got to say. Imagine London with Leeds in Manchester same distance as one end of the central line to the other. Imagine London with one road and one tube line to get across from east to west. That's what we're dealing with at the moment and we just have got to put that right and we need a long term infrastructure plan that doesn't involve us safeguarding 700 football pitches of land in the middle of our city centre for a project that we didn't ask for. But isn't delivered and the mind is changed about it halfway through. We just need a long term plan. It's a miracle actually that the cities of the north have been able to provide the job generation and the economic growth that they have in the last decade in the context of that. We've built 3000 homes a year in Leeds because we have a plan led system as Emily said that's what you need. The other thing that's happening and that I need to talk about is the crisis in local government at the moment because a quarter of our major cities have got commissioners in at the moment and the chief execs spend more time talking to those commissars than they do global investors. And any productivity plan needs planners. It needs how engineers. It needs licensing officers and the local state can't take the strain of the local welfare state any more unless you're going to get more and more councils toppling over. So there's got to be a realignment between where the money is held and where the capacity is. And I've got to say during a devolutionary period White House expanded quite considerably and that's got to change as well. The final thing I would say is that devolution is the crux of this and I am not possibly as optimistic and confident as Torston that fiscal devolution is going to flow in the next few years because people are so scared of the postcode lottery. I've got to say by the way anyone who's scared of the postcode lottery there is a postcode lottery. It means that where you're born dictates often your life chances which income bracket you're in dictates your life chances. So I'd rather have a postcode lottery based on democracy than I would one based on the accident of birth. But nevertheless devolution is needed. The mayors need to get double downed powers and support and resources around transport, around infrastructure. We need infrastructure plans. Most people oppose housing because they're not confident the economic and social infrastructures in place. And that needs to change and we could change that through a really integrated plan at that regional level. But we also need local growth plans in every part of the country, in every city. Yes, the bigger ones need that realignment of investment around infrastructure. But whether it's the Red Castile plant closing its furnace or the one about to go in Scunthor or whether it's the middle of Leeds Manchester or Birmingham or London, you've got to have a plan for each of those areas. And at the moment, I'll say one thing finally, despite all of this devolution we've had over the last decade, we still need the cities to write to the Secretary of State to put a roundabout in. That is the reality of this country, how centralised it is and it's got to change. Thank you very much, Tom. Over to you Sharon. Let's hear about the business view on business investment. Thank you very much and to say it's fantastic to be here and also fantastic to see lots of friends and familiar faces in the audience. I think both the quality but the timeliness of this piece of work is just completely spot on. I think probably the main message I want to give in terms of what really matters for business is really about sort of greater consistency and less caprice really in terms of the environment for business. So the sort of necessary if not sufficient condition for business is obviously sort of long term predictability in policy making and we've heard a bit about this in the context of Leeds. I think it's very striking we have both Jeremy Hunt and Keir today because ideally we want to take the sort of political cycle out of long term decisions be that on housing or planning on infrastructure. And actually I think a lot of the conversation for me today is about actually how do we create some of those longer terms of institutions that enable less volatility and less predictability. I mean if it's not sort of heretical as somebody who used to be involved in budget processes but even having fewer fiscal events. So for a business knowing that twice a year big changes in your business taxation in terms of the fiscal environment is the sort of antithesis of being able to plan longer term for investments. So for business boring is good and unpredictability is bad and I think that's the main message I would want to give. We haven't talked very much on the report doesn't talk a huge amount about regulation and the competition framework and actually it's interesting that the conversation to the day on regulations have touched on global services regulation. If you talk to many businesses and obviously retail is the biggest business by employment still in the country. The balance that we have in the UK between sort of a regulatory framework that supports growth alongside the consumer interest is something that I think is becoming supercritical and we saw that a little bit with the government statement last week supporting growth. So the number of businesses myself included that are concerned about consolidations or partnerships or MNA activity in the UK because it is seen that we've got perhaps a less open less balanced less pragmatic attitude to growth versus a very strong short term consumer interest. I think is hugely important particularly in connection with really attracting sort of investment and foreign flows into the UK. So for me predictability how we can you know get a commitment somehow with an election year over the next 12 months whereby big issues around housing and infrastructure. We can get more of a cross party and cross party policy making process hopefully spurred by today's excellent report. And as I say I think we need more focus on the sort of competition and regulatory regime and whether we've really got the right balance between supporting investment consolidation at times where that's the sort of you know really improving the sort of commerciality of businesses in the medium term alongside the short term consumer interest. Thank you very much Sharon. So over to Diane to talk across the piece how can we improve productivity. So the penalty for speaking last is that lots of really great points have already been made. So I'm going to start by telling you that I hate shopping and so sorry Sharon. That might explain a few things. So I wear clothes until the fabric gets thin and there comes a point when it can't take it anymore and it tears. And I think the UK is at that point and we're not talking about it enough. Although I like the Chancellor's positivity and agree that there needs to be some kind of positive story to get Britain going again. I do think we need a more honest conversation about our starting point. And what to do about that isn't entirely a mystery. There are lots of great ideas in the report. We've heard many more this morning. Last week was National Productivity Week and the Productivity Institute including work by Anna focused on a sort of narrower area. But there was a lot of overlap in the kinds of things that we can think of to boost growth again which is important to raise people's living standards because they haven't gone up since at least the mid 2000s. Now the reason that we're poorer than we think and the social fabric is in danger of tearing is that we haven't invested enough and we haven't invested enough for decades. Recently the productivity needs to put out a note showing this going back to the 1990s. It probably went back even further than that. It's public and private. It's investment in education and health. It's any kind of investment that you can think about. We haven't been doing enough of it. So clearly the public sector has got to invest more. As Tom says there is an absolute postcode lottery at the moment already in terms of your access to infrastructure depending on where you live. And so this week the Bennett Institute is putting out a document calling for universal basic infrastructure. A minimum offer to everybody in terms of transport and broadband but also health services and amenities no matter which part of the country you're living in. Because that's what gives people the opportunities to find good jobs to get access to training and means that businesses and employees can connect with each other. So there's the public sector on the private sector investment. I mean absolutely the instability means that there's a risk premium for private investors wanting thinking about putting their money in this country. I think taxes have to go up to get the tax to GDP ratio to come down. Even in areas where we think we're terrific I mean the chancellor is focusing on AI and software. Even in AI or even in finance the proportion of investment in those sectors relative to their own sectoral GVA is lower than comparator economies. So even on our leading most growth promising sectors we're under investing. And the political economy problem is at the heart of this I think. The UK is uniquely worse than its comparators in a couple of dimensions. One is the policy instability which we've already heard about. The other is the lack of policy coordination which does link to the devolution point. The lack of coordination between different levels of government. The inability of central government to take advantage of local know how to assign transport planning to the right spatial level is just appalling. And there's also a lack of coordination across different kinds of government policy. So if you take AI for example we're not really at the frontier in AI. We've got one fantastic company that bears most of the burden deep mind and its centre of gravity is now moving to Silicon Valley. Across the rest of the AI frontier we're not there and to be there we need people to be able to migrate into this country from elsewhere. And you need to join up higher education policy and student debt policy and AI policy to get that all working together. So if universities can't have foreign students they need a different financial model because we lose money on educating UK students. So joining up or another example would be the creative industries. If you hammer the BBC in public service broadcasting you're not going to have a thriving creative industry sector because they provide advanced market guarantees and training and so on for that sector. So I'm not going to carry on because of pains repeating points that other people have made really well. But that political economy question what are the right institutions. How do we have a longer term approach that has some cross party agreement and how do we get the kind of coordination we need to grow a modern economy across trade policy competition policy regulatory policy and industrial policy. So let's have an honest conversation about the scale of the challenge. Thank you. Right. Well we have less than 10 minutes for questions. So people on Slido we might have time for one question that is hashtag endings stagnation. We'd like to take a few in the room. I just wanted to ask one thing just with brief answers if possible because everyone's talked about the role of coordination. Emily mentioned we suggest a national growth board in the report last week we developed those proposals. What would a growth institution look like. So perhaps for our external speakers do you think a new institution on growth and productivity policies would be good. Do we need a new kind of specified growth and industrial strategy for the UK on those comparative advantage areas on green technologies etc. Tom maybe. I'm trying to say only if it was based in Leeds but I won't. No I think it's a it's another national solution to what is is a problem that needs to be off the regions and off localities. So I'd be worried actually that it would lead to another passing of the ball to another set of people who who wouldn't actually be invested and driven by that bottom up as well as top down. So yeah I'd be sceptical but as unless it was made up of mayors leaders you know central government people as well. We need a massive strong new partnership between the national and the local for me. Thank you Sharon. I mean I still come back to the cross party point and I think it's not necessary a fantasy area so on areas of security or foreign policy. Actually the parties do join up. And if we regard this as a I hate to use the word sort of national emergency on growth and productivity. But my hope would be that the policy makers and maybe this is post election do start to form cross party sort of decision making that essentially takes us beyond the five. Even 10 year term of a new government whether that's a sort of mixed policy growth commission. I mean I'm always wary of new institutions that take five years to set up and then you know you're arguing about paying rations. But I do think there are. There is an enormously strong intersection which I think Tolstyn and this work has shown cross party where actually there's a huge amount of consensus about the policy ideas. The issues for me about execution and political economy. Thank you and Diane. To be facetious. Yes let's put it in Manchester and but make the connections leads work properly. So I think yes but I do think it's absolutely right that it has to include localities as well. Great OK let's open up to the floor and try and keep your questions brief if you can. This gentleman at the front please. Thank you Chris Giles from the Financial Times. Everyone on the panel has called for more investment as did Tolstyn and the report earlier given our current account deficit. It's also quite clear that means less consumption and more domestic savings. Could the panel give us their view and how they would sell that to the British population. Any more questions. We'll take three together. Yeah that's fine. Yep. Will Harden. Yes good morning. Great report. I just wonder if you've slightly missed a trick. Maybe you haven't missed a trick. I want to pick up on a fantastic presentation by Emily on block holders and the relationship between shareholder structure and the very high rates of return that British companies get for poultry levels of investment. I mean isn't there kind of a in the matrix of potential pension fund reform around which a lot of discussion a kind of way of incentivizing companies or the savings institutions to take a bigger block company. Hold a position. Wouldn't that have a much more radical impact on target rates of return investment levels and even full expensing of corporation tax. I don't see it in the report so far. I wonder if you've got any thoughts on that. There is a lot on pensions in the report. But let's take the other question maybe over here. Anthony Breach Center for Cities. The report calls a lot for increasing public investment. Is it more important that we increase public investment by local or central government. Great. So would anyone like to take any of those questions given with social time Tom do you want to start. I think I was careful in saying realignment of money actually. I realized that we've got to to bigger you know generally if you were going to go across and listen to the major parties at the moment there's not a lot of let's just raise taxes. So I think there is money in the system. I think it's badly used. I think there's lots of pepper potting of large numbers of funds which add up to quite a lot of money that could be redirected and commissioned in a way that would be different. That would get a better longer term return and coming back to Sharon's point about what the private sector needs. And I think this is a bit linked into Will's point as well. The plan led approach does actually achieve results. We've done it in in Leeds where we've to achieve 3000 homes a year we have to have 110 live sites in the city every day. And to do that you've got to have the private sector on side right the way through from big to small. But once they see a plan and they know that you're going to deliver behind it they'll invest. They'll start forming small teams. They'll they'll then develop behind that. So I think it is about a longer term approach. I think it is about using the money we've got in the system more effectively. And maybe linking up the pension funds and others with that longer term approach so they can take a risk based approach to spatially making sure that they hit the whole country not just London and the South East. Thank you. Emily, do you want to talk a little bit about how we're going to pay for this? How people can sell that to voters and maybe just at a high level some of the pension reforms that we talk through in the report? Yes, I think the key point on the fact that we need to raise investment is a couple of things. Firstly, it's where micro and macro policy are really pointing in the same direction. So you have the fact that we've just gone through a cost of living crisis. We can see that people without savings were really clobbered by the fact that they didn't have savings. And that was particularly because people at the lower end of the income distribution. So it's not necessarily the kind of more wealthy people whose wealth actually raised during the pandemic, it's the people in the lower end of the income distribution. So what was key there is actually raising household savings so that people are able to withstand the shocks that unfortunately seem to be coming time and time again at the moment. But also it points in the same direction for our macro policy. And that's because we've had this current account deficit for a long time now. Maybe that's okay, but actually if we are going through a lot of macro economic shocks, maybe it is a little bit better to look to equalise that a bit more. And we know that having more savings going into investment is actually home bias. So if you have a British pension fund, it's much more likely to be investing in British companies. And you can see that with kind of the Canadian system as well as with some of the kind of US pension funds as well. In terms of the pension reforms, obviously it's a very kind of distributed landscape. I think the main kind of top level point is that we need far fewer funds rather than, you know, tons and tons of tiny little funds where you've got a penny in each of them. And so consolidating that across kind of the local government schemes, but also the DB pension funds and the DC pension funds is really key there. Great, thank you. Diane, did you have any views on Anthony's question about where should that public investment be happening in cities, at the local government level or national government level? Well given how centralised we are, it's all happening at the national level because that's where the money gets doled out. But there needs to be much more careful thought about the right spatial level for regional transport planning versus local bus services. So the answer is good to be all of those. And it would depend on the kind of infrastructure that we're talking about. Great, thank you. And Sharon, did you have any thoughts about this engaged ownership? How can we have more pressure on managers from owners, shareholders, to think about long-term value rather than short-term returns? I mean, Wales obviously written extensively the answer. I mean, obviously, from a business where our 74,000 employees, partners own the business, we're obviously not on many levels. We're not a conventional business at the John Lewis partnership because the business is giving trust to the people who work on the counter, who work at the checkout. And I do wonder where the part of the answer is also thinking about the structure of our business models and how the heart of the business is actually incentivised to think beyond quarterly shareholder value, which inevitably causes you to take some very short-term decisions, not least in terms of restructurings and costs and investments. So I think that's alongside the pension question and consolidation of pension funds, I think there still is, again, a question about whether the structure of our capitalism in this country, I guess if you put it that broadly, is set up actually to think sufficiently long-term. Thank you. So we're at 12.16, so I think we probably need to finish right now. So I just want to thank everyone. We could have obviously talked about this for much longer. Thank you to all our wonderful panellists and to you, the audience.