the second decision we are taking us to cut tax and reward hard work. i want to cut taxes, i believe in cutting taxes. what clear expression could there be of my governing philosophy than the belief that people and not governments make the best decisions about their money. but doing that responsibly is hard. we must avoid doing anything that puts a risk to our progress and controlling inflation, and no matter how much we might want them to, history shows that tax cuts do not automatically pay for themselves. and i can't click my fingers and suddenly wish away all the reasons the taxes had to increase in the first place, partly because of covid and putin's war in ukraine, and partly because we want to support people to live in dignity and requirement with a decent pension and good health care, which will cost more as the population ages. but my argument has never been that

we shouldn't cut taxes. it's been that we could only cut taxes once we have controlled inflation and debt. first cut inflation, then cut taxes. and that's why i made a promise to have inflation and the official statistics show that promise has now been met. so now that inflation has halved, and our growth is stronger, meaning revenues are higher, we can begin the next phase and turn our attention to cutting tax. we will do this in a serious, responsible way, based on fiscal rules to deliver sound money and alongside the independent forecast of the office for budget responsibility. that was the prime minister, _ for budget responsibility. that was the prime minister, rishi _ for budget responsibility. that was the prime minister, rishi sunak. i for budget responsibility. that was| the prime minister, rishi sunak. we are also expecting to hear from chancellorjeremy hunt, addressing the cbi, the confederation of british industry is, due to address them shortly, we will bring you those comments when he does. we're also following the covid inquiry, a

short break at the moment, but we have been hearing from sir patrick vallance, the chief scientific adviser during the period of the pandemic, and he told the inquiry that although there was an agreement about suppressing the virus to protect the nhs, not enough work was done about how achieve that. do you think that enough was done during february to understand what that meant and what an nhs overwhelmed would look like, what the numbers involved were? the numbers. _ the numbers involved were? the numbers, well, _ the numbers involved were? tue: numbers, well, there the numbers involved were? tte: numbers, well, there was a lot done in terms of what needed to be, what the options were to reduce the spread, so quite early in february, work started on non—pharmaceutical interventions, neil ferguson in particular drew up a lot of modelling around that, what the different options were, and came up with a figure that others indoors stop needing to get to a 75% reduction in contact in order to try and really suppress this to the

right levels. there was a lot of work done on the modelling, a lot of work done on the modelling, a lot of work done on the modelling, a lot of work done exposing those options into cobra, including with the behavioural science input on that. and there was a discussion which i think borisjohnson put in his statement, which he had with the cmo at the end of february, on lockdown options and what the implications of those would be. so i think there was a lot of evidence that there were things that needed to happen in order to achieve the aim of suppressing the curve. i'm not convinced that there was a very effective operational response to that. , . ., ., ., ., that. they had also been a lot of focus on sir _ that. they had also been a lot of focus on sir patrick's _ that. they had also been a lot of focus on sir patrick's private - focus on sir patrick's private diary, which he said he wrote in evening's to decompress and benefit is mental health, a diary which has been referenced a lot during previous hearings, and one line that came out today was that sir patrick wrote in the diary that the then prime minister, borisjohnson,

prime minister, boris johnson, looked prime minister, borisjohnson, looked broken, he had his head in his hands a lot, sir patrick wrote, in the september of 2020. during evidence this afternoon, he has also talked about friction with sir chris whitty, the then chief medical adviser, about when to lock the country down. t adviser, about when to lock the country down-— adviser, about when to lock the country down. i think chris whitty is a ublic country down. i think chris whitty is a public health _ country down. i think chris whitty is a public health specialist, - country down. i think chris whitty is a public health specialist, and i is a public health specialist, and he was rightly, in my opinion, concerned about the adverse effects of the npis. he was concerned that they would be more than just the issue of the direct cause of death from the virus, that there would be indirect causes of death due to effects on the nhs, that there would be indirect harm is due to people isolating, mental health, loneliness, issues of health that come from that procedure, and that there would be indirect long term consequences due to the economic

impacts creating poverty, which is a major driver of health. so he was definitely of the view that the treatment and the result of that treatment and the result of that treatment is needed to be considered together. and that pulling the trigger to do things too early could lead to adverse consequences. and that, i think, lead to adverse consequences. and that, ithink, is lead to adverse consequences. and that, i think, is a totally appropriate worry from the chief medical officer, and a legitimate public health concern throughout. and i didn't have exactly the same worry, i was more on the side of we need to move on this, but i think thatis need to move on this, but i think that is partly why the two of us found it useful to work together. that was sir patrick speaking earlier today. that was sir patrick speaking earliertoday. i that was sir patrick speaking earlier today. i can see that the inquiry has resumed after a coffee break, let's cross live. a very difficult question for an elected representative to come out and answer, but nevertheless, it is

and answer, but nevertheless, it is a central point for you as a scientific adviser, isn't it? tt a central point for you as a scientific adviser, isn't it? it is, a lot follows _ scientific adviser, isn't it? it is, a lot follows from _ scientific adviser, isn't it? it is, a lot follows from that. - scientific adviser, isn't it? it is,| a lot follows from that. indeed, scientific adviser, isn't it? it is, - a lot follows from that. indeed, and so central that _ a lot follows from that. indeed, and so central that by _ a lot follows from that. indeed, and so central that by april, _ a lot follows from that. indeed, and so central that by april, you - a lot follows from that. indeed, and so central that by april, you and - a lot follows from that. indeed, and so central that by april, you and i i so central that by april, you and i think professor sir chris whitty provided an advice paper about different approaches, and you refer to it in your statement as hot or cold policy or somewhere in the middle. and you are explaining to government in april how important it is that first of all they have a strategy, but also that you as advisers know about it, yes? yes. and the question _ advisers know about it, yes? yes. and the question was _ advisers know about it, yes? 133 and the question was never answered through the whole period, was it? not without specificity. find through the whole period, was it? not without specificity.— through the whole period, was it? not without specificity. and that is wh , auoin not without specificity. and that is why. going back — not without specificity. and that is why. going back to _ not without specificity. and that is why, going back to your— not without specificity. and that is | why, going back to your statement, just for the record, paragraph 406, you are dealing with lessons learnt

from the second lockdown, first observation is that the first lesson that should have been learned was the same should have been learned from the first wave, go earlier, harder, broader on the introduction of npis. yes? harder, broader on the introduction of npis- yes?— of npis. yes? that is a clear lesson- _ of npis. yes? that is a clear lesson. and _ of npis. yes? that is a clear lesson. and your _ of npis. yes? that is a clear lesson. and your second - of npis. yes? that is a clear. lesson. and your second lesson of npis. yes? that is a clear- lesson. and your second lesson was the way he — lesson. and your second lesson was the way he returned _ lesson. and your second lesson was the way he returned to _ lesson. and your second lesson was the way he returned to this - lesson. and your second lesson was the way he returned to this issue, i the way he returned to this issue, and you said there was a need to establish some greater degree of clarity on the level of mortality and morbidity that the government and morbidity that the government and society were willing to accept, end quote. and that there is book ending it, february, and then looking at your observations on the second wave, the same concern, you are not being provided with the strategy and that makes it much more difficult for you as advisers to give advice in good time so that swift, real—time, efficientand

effective decisions can be taken, is that a fair summary? t effective decisions can be taken, is that a fair summary?— that a fair summary? i think it was illustrated in _ that a fair summary? i think it was illustrated in the _ that a fair summary? i think it was illustrated in the quotes _ that a fair summary? i think it was illustrated in the quotes that - that a fair summary? i think it was illustrated in the quotes that we i illustrated in the quotes that we saw of me asking, what is the prime minister's aim and objective? so saw of me asking, what is the prime minister's aim and objective? minister's aim and ob'ective? so the answer to minister's aim and ob'ective? so the arnsew to my _ minister's aim and objective? so the answer to my question _ minister's aim and objective? so the answer to my question is _ minister's aim and objective? so the answer to my question is yes? - minister's aim and objective? so the answer to my question is yes? yes. | minister's aim and objective? so the | answer to my question is yes? yes. i will come to — answer to my question is yes? yes. i will come to one _ answer to my question is yes? te; i will come to one more answer to my question is yes? te3 i will come to one more of answer to my question is yes? t;é:3 i will come to one more of those messages in a minute, but before i do, in order to give proper scientific advice, you have to research, you have to model, and thatis research, you have to model, and that is the only way that you can provide very fast, real—time advice, is that right? provide very fast, real-time advice, is that right?_ is that right? well, the only way to rovide is that right? well, the only way to provide real-time _ is that right? well, the only way to provide real-time advice _ is that right? well, the only way to provide real-time advice is - is that right? well, the only way to provide real-time advice is to - is that right? well, the only way to provide real-time advice is to build provide real—time advice is to build on the knowledge that you have at that moment. on the knowledge that you have at that moment-— on the knowledge that you have at that moment. , , . ., that moment. yes, but in the context of an overall — that moment. yes, but in the context of an overall strategy? _ that moment. yes, but in the context of an overall strategy? yes. - that moment. yes, but in the context of an overall strategy? yes. so - that moment. yes, but in the context of an overall strategy? yes. so you i of an overall strategy? yes. so you have already _ of an overall strategy? yes. so you have already told _ of an overall strategy? tez3 so you have already told us that eat out of an overall strategy? t33 so you have already told us that eat out to help out, you didn't know anything about this policy decision until after it had been taken. correct.

you have also _ after it had been taken. correct. you have also told _ after it had been taken. correct. you have also told us _ after it had been taken. correct. you have also told us that - after it had been taken. correct. you have also told us that it - you have also told us that it inevitably increased the number of infections and therefore it must follow, mustn't it, it must have increased the number of deaths? tt is highly likely to have done so. yes. and you say in paragraph 348, just for the record, that you have, quote, no doubt that the decision makers would have understood the general advice that i and others had given before the introduction of the scheme, that it would increase viral transmission, potentially quite substantially, and quote. so you are saying that although you were not asked to advise, even though you have no doubt that those who took the decision understood is the general points about the increase of transmissibility, is that right? t transmissibility, is that right? i think i answered that early on as well, that it must be the case, because it was a complete turn on its head of the public health advice. in its head of the public health

advice. , :, :, :, :, advice. in the next, you go on to sa that advice. in the next, you go on to say that these — advice. in the next, you go on to say that these principles, - advice. in the next, you go on to say that these principles, and i advice. in the next, you go on to | say that these principles, and i'm quoting, these principles were clear and had to be discussed with ministers in cabinet, and that it was entirely predictable. so you are not leaving much room for doubt about about the effect of eat out to help out, but also that ministers were aware of what its likely effect would be. :. were aware of what its likely effect would be. :, ., , were aware of what its likely effect would be. :, . v, , , were aware of what its likely effect would be. v, v v, , , would be. that was certainly my view when i would be. that was certainly my view when i wrote — would be. that was certainly my view when i wrote that, _ would be. that was certainly my view when i wrote that, yes. _ would be. that was certainly my view when i wrote that, yes. that - would be. that was certainly my view when i wrote that, yes. that is - would be. that was certainly my view when i wrote that, yes. that is very l when i wrote that, yes. that is very clear, when i wrote that, yes. that is very clear. thank — when i wrote that, yes. that is very clear, thank you _ when i wrote that, yes. that is very clear, thank you very _ when i wrote that, yes. that is very clear, thank you very much. - when i wrote that, yes. that is very clear, thank you very much. the . clear, thank you very much. the second point relates to a notebook entry, a diary entry of the 11th of october, and it is again picking up from a topic that mr o'connor has dealt with, and i do want to put this on screen, please, 273—901, page 220. and i think it bears reading. press conference tomorrow,

11th of october 2020, press conference tomorrow, i am now dropped in favour of the chancellor of the exchequer, good, they need to understand that they need to only are making. being asked to approve the measure is knowing that it is not enough, gave the example of bolton, but only because hospitality fully closed, this is a massive abrogation of responsibility. you go on to deal with individual ministers and what you thought of their positions. and then you referred to the fact that this is relating to, i think, a zoom meeting, and you say that whilst waiting, someone clearly not on mute, baby crying, and then she starts singing the wheels on the bus, somehow shambolic of the

shambles. pm said on call that the package we have as a baseline is unlikely to get r less than one unless local leads go further, hancock says this is our last shot at avoiding local lockdown, me us mice from cabinet ministers. again, for context, this is referring to the fact that the ministerial and officials meeting had been looking at a package of measures which were not consistent with the september sage 58 meeting advice, and that advice had been this robust call for advice had been this robust call for a circuit breaker, and a suite of npis given the resurgence of covid at the time. t

npis given the resurgence of covid at the time-— at the time. i think this is a discussion _ at the time. i think this is a discussion of— at the time. i think this is a discussion of low _ at the time. i think this is a discussion of low -- - at the time. i think this is a discussion of low -- tiers, l at the time. i think this is a i discussion of low -- tiers, and it discussion of low —— tiers, and it was clear that they were not going to be enough to keep r below one, as the prime minister says. so to be enough to keep r below one, as the prime minister says.— the prime minister says. so your frustration _ the prime minister says. so your frustration is _ the prime minister says. so your frustration is that _ the prime minister says. so your frustration is that sage - the prime minister says. so your frustration is that sage has i the prime minister says. so your| frustration is that sage has given forceful advice but what is actually required is a circuit breaker, and they are still discussing, ministers involved, about trying to make an alternative suite of measures work, and your frustration is that they are ignoring site and trying to follow a course that will not work. i think the message is not so much around a circuit breaker but the tiers need to be stricter at the top end if they are going to have an impact, and this is me in the evening referring to my frustration that that is very clear and the prime minister says as much, r will not go below one unless local

leaders go further than the tier system. come out so a very strong view that, first of all, the system. come out so a very strong view that, first of all,— view that, first of all, the press conference _ view that, first of all, the press conference which _ view that, first of all, the press conference which you _ view that, first of all, the press conference which you thought l view that, first of all, the press i conference which you thought you were down to do was now going to be dealt with by a minister, the chancellor, mr sunak, and you are happy about that, because you didn't want to be putting across this view that was contrary to the scientific advice that had been given to government. t advice that had been given to government-— advice that had been given to government. i think these are different sections _ government. i think these are different sections stitched i different sections stitched together, so i'm not quite sure how they flow on in terms of thinking, but i wouldn't have wanted to be in the press conference, and i would have said r will not be brought below one, i think i did it at other press conferences. so below one, i think i did it at other press conferences.— press conferences. so you are clearly saying _ press conferences. so you are clearly saying that _ press conferences. so you are clearly saying that ministers l press conferences. so you are i clearly saying that ministers should only decisions where they are standing away from the scientific advice that you were conveying to them. :. . advice that you were conveying to them. v, , v v, , advice that you were conveying to them. v, , ~ advice that you were conveying to them. v, , : them. that is the case. and you were sa in: in them. that is the case. and you were

saying in forthright _ them. that is the case. and you were saying in forthright terms _ them. that is the case. and you were saying in forthright terms a _ them. that is the case. and you were saying in forthright terms a massive i saying in forthright terms a massive abro . ation saying in forthright terms a massive abrogation of _ saying in forthright terms a massive abrogation of responsibility, - saying in forthright terms a massive abrogation of responsibility, that i abrogation of responsibility, that is the only way you can read that, isn't it? :. . is the only way you can read that, isn't it? v, , v, , v, , , is the only way you can read that, isn't it? v, , v, , , v, isn't it? that is obviously what i thou . ht isn't it? that is obviously what i thought that — isn't it? that is obviously what i thought that night _ isn't it? that is obviously what i thought that night when - isn't it? that is obviously what i thought that night when i i isn't it? that is obviously what i thought that night when i wrote j thought that night when i wrote these notes.— these notes. again, that is very clear, these notes. again, that is very clear. thank— these notes. again, that is very clear, thank you. _ these notes. again, that is very clear, thank you. can _ these notes. again, that is very clear, thank you. can you i these notes. again, that is very clear, thank you. can you help | these notes. again, that is very i clear, thank you. can you help us with the last sentence, the baby crying and the wheels on the bus might be quite clear, but what did you mean by hancock says, this is our last shot at avoiding national lockdown, meek is mice from cabinet ministers? tt lockdown, meek is mice from cabinet ministers? . :. lockdown, meek is mice from cabinet ministers? , v, v, ministers? it is hard to tell, it looks like _ ministers? it is hard to tell, it looks like these _ ministers? it is hard to tell, it looks like these are _ ministers? it is hard to tell, it| looks like these are selections ministers? it is hard to tell, it i looks like these are selections with something missing in between, but i think that is a reference to matt hancock saying this is the last shot at avoiding a national lockdown, trying to implore his colleagues to go further, and it sounds like there wasn't much of a cabinet discussion. yes, thank you very much. tia

yes, thank you very much. no questions? — yes, thank you very much. no questions? they were covered by colleagues. questions? they were covered by colleagues-— questions? they were covered by colleauues. :. , v, , ,, colleagues. thank you, my lady. sir patrick, i colleagues. thank you, my lady. sir patrick. i ask _ colleagues. thank you, my lady. sir patrick, i ask questions _ colleagues. thank you, my lady. sir patrick, i ask questions on - colleagues. thank you, my lady. sir patrick, i ask questions on behalf i patrick, i ask questions on behalf of covid—i9 bereaved families for justice cymru, and my question are centred around the devolved administrations and particularly wales. focusing on your role as the chair of sage, can we bring up exhibit 206-615? chair of sage, can we bring up exhibit 206—615? now, on the 26th of may 2020, the first minister for wales, mark drakeford wrote to you in your capacity as the chair of sage, requesting the ability to engage more directly on the work of sage, specifically in respect of the development of the evidence base, and looking to commission work

directly from sage. please can we bring up exhibit 216—616? here we see the list of modelling questions that accompanied that letter, that the welsh government wanted sage to answer. my questions are these. to your knowledge, had any requests been made by the welsh government to commission work directly from sage prior to the 26th of may 2020? t prior to the 26th of may 2020? i don't think a direct request had come from the first minister, it is possible that the representatives from wales had got pieces of work done through subcommittees before that. : :. done through subcommittees before that. : :, done through subcommittees before that. v, v, v, v, , that. and are you aware weather site com - lied that. and are you aware weather site complied with _ that. and are you aware weather site complied with the _ that. and are you aware weather site complied with the first _ that. and are you aware weather site complied with the first minister's i complied with the first minister's requests of the 26th of may? t requests of the 26th of may? i replied a few days later and said

that robert orford, the acting adviser for health, that robert orford, the acting adviserfor health, i that robert orford, the acting adviser for health, i spoke with him and linked him into spi—m, and he realised the papers which had gone before into the public domain, which he had seen because he was on sage, that these were very, very specific modelling requests, definitely too granular to answer properly with modelling, and that there may be some advice that could be given, but it would not be possible to model this degree of granularity, you would end up with spurious accuracy. polite and insofar is the second point raised by the first minister within his letterta. point raised by the first minister within his lette— point raised by the first minister within his letter to, did sage take u . within his letter to, did sage take u- the within his letter to, did sage take up the welsh _ within his letter to, did sage take up the welsh government - within his letter to, did sage take j up the welsh government offered within his letter to, did sage take i up the welsh government offered is to support the development of the evidence base?— to support the development of the evidence base? yes, we got a lot of very useful —

evidence base? yes, we got a lot of very useful information _ evidence base? yes, we got a lot of very useful information fed - evidence base? yes, we got a lot of very useful information fed in i very useful information fed in through rob orford and the other member of the site from wales, there are references to useful information, and it was very helpful, because there were minor differences in policy between devolved administrations which did allow us to look at the effects. moving on to your role as the uk government's chief scientific adviser, what was the role, if any, of the chief scientific adviser is across the devolved administrations, including yourself, in the coordination of advice and policies across the four nations?— across the four nations? well, the four nations _ across the four nations? well, the four nations worked _ across the four nations? well, the four nations worked very - across the four nations? well, the four nations worked very closely i four nations worked very closely together at a scientific and medical level. the chief medical officer met with the cmos of the four nations very regularly, at least once a week, right from the very beginning, and we had representatives on sage.

i also had a direct come a long standing relationship with the chief scientific advisers for scotland and wales, one of whom was involved in covid, and one of whom wales decided was not evolved in covid and suggested rob orford be linked to sage. we had them involved in sage, and we also created a meeting where specific things were brought up to be put into the work plan, and i had regular meetings with the chief scientific advisers for the devolved administrations, except northern ireland, it didn't have one. fight! administrations, except northern ireland, it didn't have one. and it follows from _ ireland, it didn't have one. and it follows from that _ ireland, it didn't have one. and it follows from that question, i ireland, it didn't have one. and it follows from that question, my i ireland, it didn't have one. and it i follows from that question, my next question, where there were proposed divergences in policy between devolved administrations, where these ever discussed between the

chief scientific advisers across the devolved administrations in advance of implementation? carry out the science advice was uniform, pretty much, across the four nations. the policy decisions diverged, and i think there was probably more discussion amongst the cmos, because more decisions were in their territory than in the csa territory, but they were regionally important distinctions and policy preferences that altered between the nations. thank you. and finally, did the chief scientific advisers from the devolved governments have access to information, including data, on an equalfooting to information, including data, on an equal footing to yourself to enable the fully informed exchange of views on any meetings that you had with them across the four nations? they saw all the information that sage and the person who chaired the

scottish committee, andrew morris, actually is the chair of health data research uk, which is the big data repository, so he had probably rather more information than i did from time to time, but we were careful to make sure that we all saw everything. 50 careful to make sure that we all saw eve hina. :, careful to make sure that we all saw eve hina. v, ,~ everything. so from your perspective. _ everything. so from your perspective, you - everything. so from your perspective, you didn't i everything. so from your - perspective, you didn't consider that the devolved administrations were disadvantaged in their access to data? t were disadvantaged in their access to data? v, �* were disadvantaged in their access to data? :, �* ~' were disadvantaged in their access to data? v, �* ~ ,v, were disadvantaged in their access to data? v, �* ~ , v, v, , to data? i don't think so. there may be secific to data? i don't think so. there may be specific examples, _ to data? i don't think so. there may be specific examples, but _ to data? i don't think so. there may be specific examples, but i - to data? i don't think so. there may be specific examples, but i do i to data? i don't think so. there may be specific examples, but i do not i be specific examples, but i do not know of any, and there were many examples that the data that came from devolved administrations was incredibly important, and i would single out scotland in particular with some of their work with the electronic health databases. electronic health data bases. studio: electronic health databases. studio: that is sir patrick vallance giving evidence to the covid inquiry. iwant giving evidence to the covid inquiry. i want to take your life to the cbi conference in london, where jeremy hunt is about to speak. this comes ahead of the autumn statement, rishi sunak has already hinted at

tax cuts to come, and we know the chancellor has not yet been drawn on reports that inheritance tax could be cut, but he has said there will be cut, but he has said there will be changes around the benefit system, with more support for people looking for work, but tougher penalties for those who turn down jobs. this all comes as inflation in the uk falls below 5% for the first time, that was one of the government's key policies. we will hear more from jeremy hunt, you can see him taking the stage there, nodding to some of the opening questions and introductions being given to delegates at the cbi conference. let's hear what is being said. v, v, v, said. so, look, i can imagine one of the best points _ said. so, look, i can imagine one of the best points about _ said. so, look, i can imagine one of the best points about your - said. so, look, i can imagine one of the best points about your role i said. so, look, i can imagine one of the best points about your role is i the best points about your role is that you — the best points about your role is that you travel the world, going to g7 summits, talking to other leaders around _ g7 summits, talking to other leaders around the _ g7 summits, talking to other leaders around the world, and in your experience, when you are talking to them, _ experience, when you are talking to them, making a pitch for why invest in the _ them, making a pitch for why invest in the uk, _ them, making a pitch for why invest in the uk, what do you think is most

important _ in the uk, what do you think is most important for how we attract business _ important for how we attract business investment into the uk economy? — business investment into the uk econom ? ~ , v, v, economy? well, first of all, good afternoon. _ economy? well, first of all, good afternoon, everyone, _ economy? well, first of all, good afternoon, everyone, and - economy? well, first of all, good afternoon, everyone, and it i economy? well, first of all, good afternoon, everyone, and it is i economy? well, first of all, good afternoon, everyone, and it is a l afternoon, everyone, and it is a pleasure to be here, and i've had my head down all weekend writing the autumn statement, but it is not yet finalised, so there is still time for that last minute idea if you want to put it into my head, we have got it! but, look, ifeela lot want to put it into my head, we have got it! but, look, ifeel a lot more positive about the uk economy than i did a yearago, positive about the uk economy than i did a year ago, when i came in, and the biggest was because we have managed to have inflation, but 11.1% inflation, which it was this time last year, that is terrifyingly high, and we had to do some very difficult things to get it back under control. but i hope people can say we are now making progress on that, i would say we are now making progress on that, iwould be say we are now making progress on that, i would be focusing on growth, that, i would be focusing on growth, thatis that, i would be focusing on growth, that is why it is so useful to

engage with you. and we can start to shake off some of the defeatism and pessimism about the uk economy, so what do i say to people what i'm talking to people overseas about the uk? i say, talking to people overseas about the uk? isay, what talking to people overseas about the uk? i say, what are the industries that are going to grow the fastest in the 21st century? those are the sectors that the uk is the strongest, so i don't think many people appreciate just how successful our tech industry is, the third largest in the world last year after the united states and china, life science, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, all areas which have had tremendous success, on top of areas where we have been successful for many years, like financial services, and i think, you know, last year, if i throw my mind back to that very challenging autumn statement, i took the risk of seeing that i wanted us to be the world's next silicon valley, and i was expecting quite a lot of ridicule when i said that. but i think people

understand that what we have got in this country which gives us a chance of doing that is we have got, outside america, the will�*s best universities, and outside america, the world's best financial services, and that gives us something special, so i think we are very well poised as a country in the areas that we would want to be strong in, and we have now got to go for it. absolutely, and look, we are not short of ideas, you have already seen our 30 page autumn statement submission packed full of ideas, i think, from our members. but maybe just building on that a bit, what you just set out there in terms of that pitch for the uk economy, i think at the conservative party conference, on business day, you talked quite compellingly about, you know, the uk being a good place to start a business, but one of the challenges, when we compare ourselves to the us, how do we ensure that it is a great place to

scale up businesses in every region of the uk? because as you say, we are really lucky in the uk to have world leading universities in every region of the uk, but we really need to think about how we get that innovation ecosystem working in all regions, and that a scale—up. what would you see is how we do that? tt would you see is how we do that? if we want to be the world's next silicon valley, we have to scale up, compared to a decade ago, people would say, if you have got a good idea, in one of those growing sectors, it is not difficult to find up sectors, it is not difficult to find up to 5 million to get your business off the ground, that choose not to be the case, but it has changed because of eis and so on. if you are trying to get a witness from 20 million to, say, 500 million cap, it is too hard, and you are more likely

to get investment from canadian pension funds than british, and i think we have got the second best funded ecosystem in the world, but there are too many barriers that prevent them investing in some of the biggest domestic opportunities, so the mansion house, pension reforms, i will explain in the autumn statement how we will conclude that process. but i also think there are lots of other things that we can do in terms of removing supply—side barriers to growth. the exam question is, you know, the greatest british tech entrepreneur you have never heard of, brilliant quyt you have never heard of, brilliant guy, what would it take to persuade him not to sell out deepmind to google but grow it into a company

floated on the london stock market. i think we can do that, but we have got to do the work together.- got to do the work together. look, it was good — got to do the work together. look, it was good to _ got to do the work together. look, it was good to see _ got to do the work together. look, it was good to see around - got to do the work together. look, it was good to see around the i got to do the work together. look, it was good to see around the ai i it was good to see around the ai summit, the uk seeking to try and lead some of the development of that regulation. but look, as we think back, and i think we have talked about some of the areas where the uk can really lead the world, but we have to face into some of the challenges, and obviously as a chief economist, once a chief economist, it never quite leaves you, but productivity growth in the uk has flatlined since 2008, and there is a danger we are stuck in his dismal decade for living standards in the uk, and i think one of the messages we have been trying to say as we look forward is we need next year not to be a lost opportunity for growth here in the uk. so why do you think, as a country and business

community, we haven't made more progress on really driving productivity growth? ai, our productivity is 1596 ai, our productivity is 15% lower ai, our productivity is 1596 lower than germany's. _ ai, our productivity is 1596 lower than germany's. so, _ ai, our productivity is 1596 lower than germany's. so, broadly- ai, our productivity is 1596 lower- than germany's. so, broadly speak, it takes the germans four days to make, it takes us five days. with need to address that. despite that handicap, we have grown faster than germany since 2010. who why that is? i think the reason is because we outinnovate germany. our innovation industries have done well and we have built this huge technology industry that we didn't have before. i say if we can fix the productivity we will be unstoppable, because we have the innovation. and why do we have the innovation. and why do we have that productivity gap? well it is not because germans work harder than us, if anything we work longer

hours, it