Customer loyalty schemes, such as Tesco Club Card, Boots Advantage Card and Nectar, are popular with shoppers and proven to encourage customer retention and increase sales, yet only 20% of offline retailers have a loyalty scheme.

With 280,000 retailers in the UK generating £300 billion in revenue every year, London-based startup, Fidel, saw an opportunity to rethink the way shoppers can be rewarded for their custom.

Fidel’s goal was to make loyalty and retention marketing simple for both merchants and consumers, and to enable retailers to increase revenues. The company developed a platform that makes it easier for consumers to receive rewards for their purchases. Instead of having to carry different loyalty cards or coupons for each store, they can use their normal debit or credit cards and rewards are allocated automatically at the point of sale.

Turning a vision into global sales

Subrata Dev, Fidel’s founder and CEO, said:

When Fidel applied for the Innovate UK grant, we had little more than a vision. We were operating a customer engagement platform for SMEs and wanted to find a seamless way for customers to collect points and rewards without having to scan cards, key rings or mobile apps.

I’m very excited about the progress we’ve made and where this is heading. The demand has been phenomenal and beyond our expectations. We had so much interest in the platform we were building, before the project had even ended, that we managed to secure further capital from one of the largest venture capital firms in the world, Horizons Ventures.

This additional capital will now help us grow and commercialise the service in UK and internationally.

The platform Fidel created makes it easy for developers to build innovative loyalty applications and services that are linked with payment cards, without having to integrate directly with each payment network (Visa, Mastercard and Amex). Fidel’s mission is to speed up the adoption of ‘card-linked loyalty’ by making the technology more accessible.

Subrata Dev added:

We take care of all the heavy-lifting in the background whilst our partners can focus on building cool products that will ultimately drive transaction volumes and contribute towards the growth of the ecosystem.

A steady increase in customers

Today, the Fidel API is powering several businesses, including Avios (British Airways). Customers will soon be able to earn Avios points automatically while shopping at their local supermarkets, restaurants, airports and coffee shops using any bank card.

Other customers include TopCashBack, Perkbox, Airtime and Percent. Some of the merchants who are already connected to the platform include household names such as Debenhams, Gap, Burger King, House of Fraser, Cafe Nero and Subway.

Fidel has also been invited by Japan’s 3 biggest banks to support the Japanese government’s aim of increasing card usage from 18% to 40% by 2020. By introducing Fidel’s technology platform, the banks hope to encourage more of their customers to take up cashless shopping.

Fidel is expanding the service globally to Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia and the US, and has doubled the size of its team since completing the grant project in November 2017.

Providing a secure interface for users

The company has been careful to build in safeguards for consumers. It is PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) level 1 certified. The company handles and transmits all sensitive data via secure bank-level encryption methods.

No personal information, such as a card number, is ever stored. The company cannot monitor transactions without explicit opt-in consent from cardholders and they monitor qualified transactions at participating merchant locations only to fulfil rewards. All data is stored on an anonymised and aggregated basis and the company never analyses or shares this data with third parties.

46 Heads of Government, over 50 Ministers and 15,000 delegates attended. Heads of delegations met in London and at Windsor Castle, while Ministers and other participants took part in forums for women, youth, civil society and business, and dozens of side events and multilateral and bilateral meetings.

Discussions focused on the theme “Towards a Common Future” for the citizens of the Commonwealth and considered how the organisation needs to change and grow in order to remain relevant to their aspirations.

The Commonwealth is a unique institution built on deep partnerships. CHOGM 2018 reconfirmed the value of the Commonwealth as a modern forward-looking organisation, responsive to the global challenges we all face today, and will face in the future. The meeting showed how effectively the Commonwealth can unite its 53 Member States around issues of common concern, issues like equal access to education and environmental sustainability, both of them tremendously important to the billion young people who live in Commonwealth countries as they look to the future.

Commonwealth members used the opportunity to give further substance to commitments on limiting climate change with the launch of the ‘Commonwealth Blue Charter’ to protect the oceans, supported by a ‘Clean Oceans Alliance’ to tackle plastic pollution, which Sri Lanka joined. Sri Lanka will lead work on the conservation of mangroves in Commonwealth countries.

The Commonwealth’s uniqueness lies in its human networks. People-to-people links define the institution and we need to recognise and nurture them. President Sirisena in his address to the Commonwealth Business Forum highlighted how the government’s “Blue-Green” economic plan will aim to advance the full utilization of the ocean and the other natural resources of Sri Lanka in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable way. In his address to business leaders he commented on the importance of finding solutions to common problems: “There is no standard approach for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, and each country decides its own path. However the approach led by our countries should be people centred”, he said.

Leaders discussed the need for increasing cooperation across security challenges and committed to implementing global programmes that will facilitate better coordination of efforts. Agreement on the ‘Commonwealth Cyber Declaration’, the world’s most geographically diverse intergovernmental commitment on cyber-security co-operation, illustrated the opportunity for the Commonwealth to bring its members together to meet emerging challenges and threats to the security of all our countries. Commitments relevant to the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention also illustrated how the Commonwealth can bring members together behind approaches to common global security problems.

The Summit also provided the opportunity for discussions on boosting trade and investment within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contains some of the world’s fastest growing economies and its members account for one-fifth of global trade. Part of its strength lies in so many of its members shared instincts about the importance of open societies and open economies.

Sri Lanka pledged financial support as an anchor investor in the Commonwealth Small States Trade Financial Facility which will help small, vulnerable countries access global markets. Commonwealth small states are expected to have access to USD 300 million of incremental trade finance over a three-year period from this programme.

Sri Lanka leading the way in this endeavour demonstrates another truth of the Commonwealth – that the size of a country is not a limit to ambition and impact. In thanking Her Majesty The Queen for her years of dedicated and unfailing support the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, summarised this. The Commonwealth is a grouping in which “the voice of the smallest member country is worth precisely as much as that of the largest; [in which] the wealthiest and the most vulnerable stand shoulder to shoulder”. In the many outcomes of CHOGM 2018 we saw this reaffirmed.

Mr Speaker, I would like to get on record that the aid workers who have been attacked in South Sudan are very much in our thoughts. Aid workers should never be a target. The whole house will want to join me in sending our support to them and to their families.

Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the United Kingdom’s support for the people of Syria. I am keenly aware that Honourable Members are deeply concerned about the level of suffering experienced by millions of Syrians. The United Kingdom has shown, and will continue to show, leadership in the international humanitarian response.

In the eighth year of the conflict the plight of the Syrian people remains grave. The Syrian regime appears to have no intention of ending the suffering of its own people, despite the opposition placing no conditions on peace negotiations.

The barbaric attack in Douma on innocent civilians, including young children, was yet another example of the regime’s disregard for its responsibility to protect civilians. Some may seek to cast doubt over the attack and who was responsible, but intelligence and first-hand accounts from NGOs and aid workers are clear: the World Health Organisation received reports that hundreds of patients arrived at Syrian heath facilities on the night of 7 April with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals.”

Regime helicopters were seen over Douma on that evening: the Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs.

Asad and his backers, Russia and Iran, will attempt to block every diplomatic effort to hold the Regime accountable for these reprehensible and illegal tactics. That is why the United Kingdom, together with our US and French allies took co-ordinated, limited and targeted action against the Regime’s chemical weapons’ capabilities to alleviate humanitarian suffering.

Britain is clear: we must defend the global rules based system that keeps all of us safe. And I welcome the support we have had from members of this house and from the international community.

We will work with the UN and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to create a new independent mechanism to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks.

We will work with France on the International Partnership against Impunity, and with the EU to establish a new sanctions regime against those responsible for chemical weapons use.

In wielding its UN veto twelve times, Russia has given a green light to Asad to perpetrate human rights atrocities against his own people – a regime that has used nearly seventy thousand barrel bombs on civilian targets.

A regime that tries to starve its people into submission, despite the UN Security Council calling for unhindered humanitarian access.

A regime that has continued to obstruct aid to Eastern Ghouta and removes medical supplies from the rare aid convoys that do get in.

A regime that deploys rape as a weapon of war, with nearly eight out of ten people detained by the regime reported to have suffered sexual violence.

A regime that deliberately bombs schools and hospitals, and targets aid workers and emergency responders as they race to the scene to help.

We must support the innocent victims of these atrocities. All warring parties must comply with the Geneva Conventions on the protected status of civilians and other non-combatants. There must be an immediate ceasefire and safe access for aid workers and medical staff to do their job.

We also want to adapt what we do to the new reality of this war. That is why I have announced the new ‘Creating Hope in Conflict’ fund with USAID to work with the private sector to find new technology to save lives in conflict zones, and Britain will establish a humanitarian innovation hub to develop new capabilities to hinder regimes who appear determined to slay innocent men women and children.

Our aid has made a difference. Despite the horrific violence meted out by Asad, we have been able to prevent mass starvation, and large scale disease outbreaks. When we are able to reach people who need our help, our aid works.

We are the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria. Since 2012, our support has provided over 22 million monthly food rations, almost 10 million medical consultations, and over 9 million relief packages.

But the suffering continues.

13.1 million people are now in need of humanitarian assistance. Over half of Syria’s population has been displaced by violence, with nearly 6 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries.

In north-west Syria, an intensification of hostilities and the arrival of an additional 60,000 people from Eastern Ghouta is stretching scarce resources. Today, 65% of the population of Idleb – over 1.2 million people – have been forced from their homes.

At last week’s Conference [“Supporting the future of Syria and the Region” in Brussels], I announced that the UK will provide at least £450 million this year, and £300 million next year to alleviate the extreme suffering in Syria and provide vital support in neighbouring countries. This will be in addition to our support for the second EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey. We have now committed £2.71 billion since 2012, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

Our pledge will help keep medical facilities open to save lives. We will deploy protective equipment to keep medics and rescue workers safe. We will deploy antidote stocks to treat any further victims of chemical weapons use. We will train doctors and nurses to treat trauma wounds.

We will focus on education, making sure that every child in the region has access to quality education even in the most trying of circumstances; and on steps to protect civilians and ensure that those responsible for attacks will face justice. And we will help support the millions of Syrian refugees sheltering in neighbouring countries.

Our friends in the region, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey in particular, continue to demonstrate extraordinary generosity in opening their doors to millions fleeing the conflict in Syria.

We must continue to offer them our fullest support. Last week I announced that the UK will host an international conference with Jordan in London later this year. It will showcase Jordan’s economic reform plans, its aspiration to build a thriving private sector, and mobilise international investment.

There are refugees who can’t be supported in the region: people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk of exploitation. We will work closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those most at risk and bring them to the UK.

We are helping. But, with Russian support, Asad continues to bomb his own people – that is why so many continue to die and so many have fled their homes.

There can be no military solution to the Syrian civil war. As UN Special Representative, Staffan de Mistura, said in Brussels last week, the Asad regime risks a pyrrhic victory unless they and their backers engage in a genuine political process. Only this can deliver reconciliation and the restoration of Syria as a prosperous, secure and stable state.

The UK will continue to support the efforts of the UN, under the Geneva process, to this end. The obstacles remain serious – the regime has shown no inclination to engage seriously so far, and the Security Council remains divided.

But the international community cannot and should not resign themselves to failure. The costs for Syria, for the region, and for the wider international rules based system are too great. The Foreign Secretary was in Paris last Thursday to discuss with key partners how we should intensify our efforts to bring this conflict – and its causes – to an end.

Whilst we actively work to find a political solution, the UK will continue to stand alongside the people of Syria and the region; to do what we can to alleviate human suffering; and to demand immediate access for aid workers to all those who need our help.

I commend this statement to the house.

It is wonderful to be back in Oxford, not only because of many happy memories, but also to be in a city that is central to so many energy breakthroughs.

In 1976 Professor Goodenough formed a research group from around the world to tackle the intractable problem of how to make batteries rechargeable.

And these great minds struggled, they even had to call out the fire brigade when experiments went wrong… But of course in 1980 they published their findings in Materials Research Bulletin.

The world took notice – the lithium ion battery changed the world, although it meant that officials could pester ministers at any time, day or night.

So many academic innovations have sprouted from this academic powerhouse, from nuclear fusion research at Culham to Professor Snaith’s new understandings of perovskites which could transform solar power.

And it is harnessing the value of this sort of world changing innovation that we want to see right across the UK, and particularly in the energy portfolio.

That’s why this government has set out the biggest ever increase in public research and development investment; three billion pounds more invested every year by 2021.

And it is that focus on innovation, research, development, commercialisation which underpins the Industrial Strategy.

Looking at how we invest in Britain’s historical straights to create the high-growth firms and well-paid jobs is essential to redress many of the imbalances of our economy, and make sure we are fit for the future. And our modern Industrial Strategy doesn’t just celebrate engineering developments, it celebrates ideas.

That’s why it’s so great to be hosted by Aurora today, a relatively new energy research company, trying to do things differently…

… and one that has already grabbed a leading position across Europe.

And that was one of the reasons we tapped into one of Aurora’s founding directors, to ask for his wisdom and his experience of the energy sector, to lead the Independent Cost of Energy Review.

This was commissioned as a no-holds barred look at how we deliver more affordable energy, to look at how we keep the lights on, while decarbonising, how we create innovation, and how we balance those relationships and those responsibilities between the public sector and the market.

The review has sparked a debate, a vibrant debate if I might say, about how we actually get to an energy market where active consumers, not producers, are central; where the pyramid of supply and distribution is turned upon its head; where we realise the potential of the investments we’ve been making now for many years in new clean energy technologies.

And where we implement ideas and spending according to a framework. One of the frameworks we’ve been using a lot in the Clean Growth Strategy which I authored last year, is the idea of a triple test that investment makes sense if it decarbonises, if you can see a cost trajectory so that means you don’t burden consumers with expensive innovations over the long term, and where you actually create and leverage a strategic innovation that means you can export that technology globally.

And since Dieter’s Review was published, we have also published the Industrial Strategy White Paper, which once again emphasised the importance of energy to our economic success.

And showed a reliable, affordable, and smart energy system provides the backbone for a stronger, fairer, and more productive society.

And how new technologies, AI, big data, EVs, autonomous vehicles are not just disruptive in their own sector but are also hugely disruptive to the energy sector as well.

And how creating the conditions for success for fair competition is so central to innovation.

And also how energy systems are central to the broader challenge of clean growth, 1 of the 4 Grand Challenge of the Industrial Strategy. An energy system that underpins, benefits from and accelerates the transformation of our economy.

And Dieter’s Review covered very eloquently many of these arguments. Much of his diagnosis is compelling, articulated brilliantly.

He talks about the disruptors that are coming along in this sector, the move from passive to active demand, more and more zero marginal low cost clean generation.

We are now buying at prices unimaginably low compared to just a few years ago. Access to cost-effective storage technologies that scale; linking in electric mobility into the grid.

Dieter says that these changes are happening regardless of what government does, whether we like it or not, this is the way the market is moving.

And so for me the job of government is to re-examine the bits that we do, the bits of the market that we are involved in, the frameworks, the policies, the regulation that we put in place, to make sure that they are fit for purpose.

That they encourage this innovation, they increase competition, and they don’t have unintended consequences down the road.

And I think if we manage these changes well, the historic tension between cost, CO2 and security becomes irrelevant.

It’s a little bit like the conversation we have for clean growth, where some had always imagined that a green future meant hunkering down in caves.

Recessions are really good for cutting carbon emissions, and there are still politicians out there who would rather like that to be the case.

But actually, if you look at what the UK has done when it has decarbonised more and grown faster than any other G7 nation since 1990, that these 2 things go hand in hand.

And it’s the same with the age-old energy trilemma.

And of course, if it’s the UK innovators who develop the technologies to achieve those goals, we reap those industrial and economic benefits, bringing home the benefits of the world’s pivot to this low-carbon future in a way that generates highly productive jobs and growth at home.

So Dieter’s Review brings that challenge to life, and without front-running the response to the consultation, I did want to dwell on three of his findings, not all 68 of them, don’t worry.

The first was the necessity for more active management of the system.

The huge increase in distributed generation, the opportunity for more demand-side response, and the potential for creating new demand for electric heating creates a requirement for a less passive local grid.

Grid management is hard enough in the current top-down system, the idea of having intermediates and end-states of supply and demand I think is incredibly challenging.

And so, Dieter’s proposal for the system of neutral regional systems operators is extremely interesting. And it’s part of the process that we’re already going through, which has already seen us create a much more independent systems operator role for National Grid.

Dieter’s review challenges us to consider whether and how we should go further. The network industry has come forward with initial proposals, which we’re looking at, many of them suitably ambitious.

But we will be working closely to ensure that these go beyond ‘business-as-usual’ and deliver the framework that we need to move us to this future. We have to get this right.

And secondly, Dieter’s eye-catching proposal for the equivalent firm power auction is worth dwelling on. When considering this, I am mindful that many of the tools are actually working well.

I know we’ve taken a fair share of criticism for how we got here, but if you look at what the tools are delivering, CfDs are delivering offshore wind at 57 pounds per MWh with every prospect of further reductions, and with an industry that is being created as part of that supply chain, right across the UK.

The Capacity Market is giving confidence to industry that there is no risk to supply at keener and keener prices. And of course the ‘Beast from the East’ tested the resilience of the systems right across Europe and the UK. I think there are lessons to be learned, but overall our gas and electricity systems proved robust and responsive.

The market frameworks we had in place provided National Grid with the tools they needed.

Dieter’s challenge is how do we evolve today’s arrangements, so they can adapt to this pace of change and achieve this end-state that we want to see going forward.

And the Capacity Market is obviously a key part of that evolution.

So later this year, we will be conducting a formal review to mark 5 years since this introduction, asking some key questions:

Have we got the penalty regime right? Are the outcomes of the market aligned, not just with the security of the energy system, but with the triple test I described, and the ambition we have in the Industrial Strategy?

Should it be open to new technologies, like renewables as we are seeing in Ireland? How do we include battery technology into this mix? How do we work with demand-side response and small-scale gas installations, which have already confounded prior expectations?

Understanding and answering these questions will help simplify the system in line with Dieter’s recommendations, whilst maintaining robust energy security and delivering on our triple test.

But as we consider these changes, we have to create market structures and regulation that continue to make the UK one of the leading destinations for energy investment.

I think that clarity of regulatory structure and confidence in the system are a hugely important part of that. As we look to the future, I think it’s worth reflecting on the work that we’re doing now to ensure well-regulated, competitive markets deliver value and service for customers. That markets work for customers in a way that consumers perceive industry they should.

We’ve seen huge improvements in the efficiency of our home energy system, thanks to the smart regulation insulation measures.

I’ve given lie to the argument that all this stuff we do, the investing in the future of energy, is somehow putting up prices.

Whilst we’ve seen a policy price increase, bills have gone down in the average household because of excellent improvements in energy efficiency, and as we made clear in the Clean Growth Strategy.

We want to build on that success. I’ll be reviewing the ECO obligation very shortly, which I want to pivot as much as possible to helping those living in fuel poverty, making sure that it provides a much better route to market for innovation technology in the home efficiency space.

We’re regulating so that landlords have to ensure the homes they let are cheaper to run.

We’ve exempted many of our energy-efficient industries from many of the levies that we have brought forward. And we’ve also taken tough decisions in 2015 to cut subsidies while focusing resources on strategically important sectors like offshore wind and nuclear.

And just this month you may have seen that I brought forward the Price Cap Legislation, with very strong cross-party support.

This is not an attempt to set energy prices in Westminster.

This is an attempt to help the market speed up its evolution to a more competitive marketplace.

We have a problem in this market as in so many others, which is asymmetry of customer information: a group of highly enabled, digitally-savvy consumers who are able to take advantage of switching deals that are on offer given the new entrance on the market, and then a much larger group of those who are not as aware or as able to take advantage of those opportunities and worryingly tend to be older, less wealthy, less educated, often more vulnerable.

And we know that the market is working hard with its regulator to address many of those problems… But we want to make sure that that acceleration continues. That’s why we’re bringing forward a time-limited, intelligent intervention in the market to help reset this market to ensure it works for consumers.

And it’s part of a huge package of work that is coming forward:

• smart meter roll-out
• faster switching
• half-hourly settlements
• midata portability

Together this will mean that switching will be almost instantaneous and extremely easy to do. Dieter has made clear proposals in this area about what the cap should include. It is quite rightly being developed by Ofgem and I’m sure they will be listening carefully to Dieter’s recommendations when they bring forward the cap.

That cap will be in place by the end of this year.

Dieter’s review also makes absolutely clear that government has an important role to play in new nuclear. Dieter calls it a societal choice, as to whether to invest in nuclear.

But for us, it’s more than that. For us, nuclear has a crucial role to play in creating a diverse, reliable energy supply that reduces our CO2 emissions, creates a cost trajectory that we can see going forward and contributes enormously to the Industrial Strategy, to the creation of exportable innovation and capability.

I have no doubt that nuclear is a vital part of the mix both in the UK and for the global community to meet its Paris commitments.

It is also a sector that can deliver innovation, growth, and high-quality jobs for the economy.

But to get these benefits, we have to get costs down.

And this is a joint partnership between government and industry.

For me it’s about innovation. It’s about understanding how new technologies techniques, whether it’s digitisation, modular manufacturing, whatever it is, can help simplify and standardise the nuclear new-build process, and potentially find new markets for that technology.

I’m extremely mindful of the role of government in supporting new nuclear…

We’re studying the results of the NAO report carefully.

If we can get this right, we can maintain our position at the forefront of nuclear innovation. That, for me, is an example of the Clean Growth Grand Challenge in action.

But whether it’s nuclear, or the rest of the energy supply, we have got to think hard about the policy and regulatory changes that we bring forward and be mindful of the unintended consequences that can happen, not just currently, but over a decent period of time going forward.

The government’s ambition is for the UK to have the lowest energy cost in Europe for both households and businesses, whilst delivering on our CO2 targets and ensuring security of supply. We don’t know how markets will look in 50 years’ time.

There are so many disruptive technologies out there, from digitalisation, AI, the continued galloping fall in the cost of clean technology.

For me, this is the most exciting moment in the energy industry in the UK since privatisation, and this change will only accelerate going forward.

More renewables, coal getting off the system by 2025, increasing amounts of distributed energy, more storage, more demand-side, more local generation; again inverting this pyramid, from passive consumers and the top-down approach, to energy moving up and down the system.

And that’s before we confront the challenge that a more electrified heating system may place on the system. If you look at the Clean Growth Strategy, we’re looking at what hydrogen pathway looks like, what increased electrifications looks like; there are radical changes coming forward that will hugely impact the investment decisions we take.

And for me, central planning of anything, whether it’s of an economy or an energy system, means taking often poor choices for short-term ends, and stifling innovation.

The way to get beyond that is to put the consumer, not the producer, at the heart of energy policy.

Firms who create value for consumers – whether they’re large energy-intensive industries, or little old ladies paying on standard variable tariffs – the firms that create the value and deliver the service for those consumers, not the firms which are best at lobbying government, are the ones that are most rewarded by investment and by market share.

A system where market participants who innovate and can reduce both costs and emissions over time, thrive. That is the challenge we all face, whether it is government, regulators or indeed incumbents. That is the market that we want to see coming forward.

If we get it right, the astounding opportunities that are out there, both in solving our own energy problems and solving the energy problems of the world are just immense.

Helping the world’s poorest countries never build a coal-fired power station, but moving straight to a distributed, renewable policy, using some of our climate finance to make that happen.

If we can unlock that future, then the opportunities for UK-based innovation, economic growth and job creation are absolutely immense.

And again, I pivot back to the Industrial Strategy.

The people in the room will know about the Faraday challenge, the first beneficiary of one of the major investments to come out of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund…

Investing where we have a comparative advantage in technology, where we have an industry working from a position of strength,

… we already manufacture 1 in 5 of the electric vehicles sold in in Europe,

… overflowing any benefit into the renewables industry where distributed storage is what will unlock possibilities going forward

… and bringing it all together in a public- private way that drives jobs and growth and innovation and ultimately productivity.

And so, this ambition of a clean low cost innovative energy supply that works for customers, creates strong supply chains, really is built on incredible innovation and knowledge and development, just like we saw in Professor Goodenough’s lab.

That is the prize that is out there for us.

And ultimately, we want to seize that opportunity, create those long-term commercial advantages in the UK, but make sure that when we commercialise and bring them to market, that IP is also kept in the UK and contributes to our economy going forward.

Thank you very much.