Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome to the 2021 Annual General Meeting of National Grid. I'm Paula Reynolds, the new chair of National Grid. Thank you for joining us through our live stream, and also, thanks to the few of you who decided to take a chance and appear in person. We appreciate everyone's understanding, given the vast uncertainty about COVID restrictions and contract tracing. We really appreciate everyone's indulgence. For those of you who are viewing via the live stream and who submitted your questions online, be assured we'll answer them during the course of the meeting. As those of you in the room will observe, the only directors who are present are John Pettigrew, Andy Agg, and Mark Williamson, and they are present for the purposes of constituting a quorum. The rest of the directors are all registered attendees, so they are watching as you are. This arrangement is hardly ideal, but I guess, as for the last number of months, we're all going to do the best we can across the miles. You'll note that in Resolution 25, we're asking shareholders, among other things, to support the company's proposal to offer a hybrid meeting in the future. This meeting is, in a sense, a hybrid meeting because most of you have volunteered not to come in person. Unfortunately, as we explained in our notice of meeting, we weren't able to offer live engagement and voting for those of you who are at home under our current articles. That's part of why we ask you to support this resolution. I think we all hope that there will be no pandemic limitations in the future, but we want to engage with all the shareholders in the future in the way that's most convenient for them. Technology has proved that it can work. A hybrid meeting would actually allow for a broader range of shareholders to participate in the AGM in a way that's most convenient for you. You could vote and ask questions online if you approve this resolution. We still would meet in person as well. We would just appreciate your support of Resolution 25 in its entirety. Now, let me introduce you to members of the board, albeit it's remote. First, we have my fellow U.S.-based non-executive directors who are registered and viewing the webcast, as you are. We have Thérèse Esperdy, who's Chair of our Finance Committee. Earl Shipp, who's Chair of our Safety, Environment, and Health Committee, and Jonathan Silver. Viewing online in the U.K. are non-executive directors Jonathan Dawson, who chairs the Remuneration Committee, Liz Hewitt, Chair of the Audit Committee, and Amanda Mesler. Mark Williamson, our senior independent director, and executive directors Andy Agg, our chief financial officer, and John Pettigrew, our chief executive, are in the room. I'd also like to introduce you to Justine Campbell, our group general counsel and company secretary. Like me, this is her first AGM, and she is in attendance, so she's the lucky one. You'll have noted in the notice of the meeting and in the annual report that two board members are not standing for re-election. Nicola Shaw, who has run our U.K. electric and gas transmission businesses, is stepping down from the board. Following the strategic transactions that we announced in March, the position of U.K. executive director will no longer exist in our new operating model. Nicola has graciously agreed to stay to navigate our team through the appeal of our most recent U.K. rate decisions before the Competition and Markets Authority. She is providing invaluable service right now. We're grateful for Nicola Shaw's contributions in this important case and for the value she's delivered for the company in the last five years. You'll also note that Paul Golby has reached the end of his term as a board member, having served National Grid with extraordinary wisdom and commitment for almost 10 years. Although Paul and I have only known one another for a year, I have come to rely on his perspectives and his advice. His insights and the gracious manner in which he offers his guidance will be missed by the board, the executives, and me, especially. Looking forward, we have appointed three new non-executive directors to our board. First is Lord Ian Livingston of Parkhead, a highly regarded U.K. business leader who's operated across a breadth of sectors, including regulated industries, as well as serving in the U.K. government as Minister of State for Trade and Investment. He'll bring an invaluable perspective to the challenges and opportunities of the journey to net zero. He'll join the board officially on August 1, also joining the Remuneration Committee, where he will succeed Jonathan Dawson as chair in the future. Tony Wood, our second appointee. He brings significant engineering experience from a successful career at Rolls-Royce. He's currently the chief executive of Meggitt PLC. Tony's unwavering focus on safety throughout his career in his industry of aerospace and the technology that is inherent in that industry make him well-qualified to join the Safety, Environment, and Health Committee. As well, he'll join the Nominations Committee. Our third new director is Martha Wyrsch, who brings relevant contemporary experience in energy, technology, and financial services, as well as a deep understanding of the U.S. regulatory environment. Her experience spans the energy, infrastructure, and renewables industry, and she's an accomplished director for publicly listed companies both in the U.K. and the U.S. Martha will join the Remuneration Committee and the Safety, Environment, and Health Committee. Tony and Martha will take up their roles on 1 September. Suffice it to say, I'm delighted to have these new directors in place early on in my own tenure, and I'm delighted to be presiding over this AGM as your new chair. It's awkward not to be in the room with you. Meanwhile, our current articles, the ones that we're asking you to amend, require that there be a formal chair of this meeting in person in the room. The board has appointed Mark Williamson, our senior independent director, to be formally chairing this annual meeting today. Mark will explain the formal business of today's meeting. He'll manage the Q&A process on my behalf following John Pettigrew's business review. I'll be available to answer questions that are directed to me over the internet. Let me just make a couple of brief remarks now, and again, say that I'll look forward to meeting you in person in the times ahead. Despite not being able to travel to the U.K., I've been able to meet many stakeholders over the internet in the U.K., and thank goodness for Microsoft Teams and Zooms and these other fantastic tools. Prior to joining the board officially, and then in my first six months on the board, I've reached out to regulators, to energy policymakers, to stakeholders around the energy transition, and of course, investors in our company. In the U.S., I've had the good fortune to be able to travel. In addition to meeting the same sorts of stakeholders and regulators in the U.S., I've been able to travel to New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. I've met our employees face-to-face. I've seen our people at work underground and overhead. I've spoken to members of the communities in which we serve. John Pettigrew and I have come together on several occasions in the U.S. as well because he did receive a special visa to travel during this period of time, fortunately. This is all to assure you that while we're not able to meet in person and it's not perfect to meet people over technology, we are keeping our eyes on the business. I'm acquainting myself with who knows what and being able to challenge and ask questions and learn along the way. There is a lot going on in this business. John will tell you more. Let me just offer, though, one additional perspective, that besides meeting employees from both sides of the Atlantic, I've obviously had the time now to meet my colleagues on the board and get to know them. In them, I see a group of individuals who do their homework, work hard to understand the complexities of the business, and to support our management while giving good challenge, and to offer guidance on how National Grid might navigate this energy transition and support a decarbonized future. In fact, you will note that Resolution 20, on which the board is recommending a vote in favor, we provide a framework under which National Grid commits to be accountable for making progress in the journey to net zero. We view this as a very important move and, as I said, urge that you vote in favor. The board is focused on several things. First is, and always, on performance, operational and financial. Second is strategy, and now it really includes delivering on our role in the energy transition and setting appropriate expectations of how quickly and effectively these sort of massive changes can be unfolded. Third, the board is focused on our people, many of whom I have now met either in person or virtually. We're focused on the development of our employees, on our obligation for their safety, on providing the right resources to enable them to deliver, and on to promoting a fair and inclusive workplace. Okay. Let's get to the order of the meeting. First, John, our CEO, will offer some comments on the company's performance and priorities. Mark will then chair the formal business of the meeting, where we'll consider the resolutions as set forth in the notice of meeting, and then we'll entertain questions. As I said earlier, we'll start with the questions previously submitted online. We'll go to those of you who are attending in person to ask your questions. We ask that all questions that are raised today focus on National Grid's performance and outlook, the material contained in the annual report, and the resolutions being put to the meeting for vote today. With that, I thank you for your attention and turn the meeting over to our CEO, John Pettigrew. John, it's all yours. Thank you, Paula. Good morning, everyone. Well, a lot has happened over the past year. We've performed strongly during the pandemic and delivered solid financial performance, which is testament to the resilience of our businesses and the commitment of our people. It's from this position of strength that we announced our acquisition of WPD in March. This is a transformational development for National Grid. It's increasing our focus on electricity, putting us firmly at the heart of the energy transition, and enhancing the long-term growth profile of the group. This transaction, alongside our decision to sell our Rhode Island business and a majority stake in our U.K. gas transmission business, combined with a greater level of regulatory certainty, underpins the new five-year outlook that we announced last month. I'll start today with an overview of our financial performance for the year. Our operating profit of GBP 3.3 billion was 3% below last year at constant currency, driven by the financial impact of COVID. However, excluding the increase in cost due to COVID, financial performance across our regulated businesses was in line with last year. We expect to recover the majority of these costs over the medium term. Despite the challenges brought about by COVID, we delivered another strong year of investment in critical infrastructure, with capital expenditure in line with guidance at GBP 5 billion, driving group asset growth of 6%. In line with our policy, the board proposed a final dividend of GBP 0.3216 per share. Looking ahead and reflecting on the move from RPI to CPIH in our U.K.-regulated businesses, the board announced in March our aim to grow the annual dividend per share in line with U.K. CPIH. I'll now turn to the progress on our operational priorities. Starting with the U.S., we've made good progress against our targets. We increased investment in critical infrastructure to $4.3 billion, with our single largest area of investment continuing to be our gas pipe replacement program. This investment enabled us to grow to continue to deliver strong rate base growth at 8% in FY 2021. COVID-related costs and a greater number of storms meant our achieved return on equity decreased by 210 basis points to 7.2%. Adjusting for these headwinds and the impact of rate case delays, our return on equity was 8.6%, or 92% of our allowed return. We've also made significant regulatory progress. The three-year settlement for KEDNY and KEDLI in Downstate New York includes an allowable return on equity of 8.8%. This will see us invest $3.3 billion to modernize gas infrastructure and enhance network safety. It'll support a sustainable and affordable path towards a low-carbon energy future. In Upstate New York, we expect an outcome on the filing for Niagara Mohawk business this autumn. Hearings are underway for a potential five-year rate plan for our Massachusetts gas business, with new rates expected to be effective from October this year. Moving to the U.K., we continued our capital program with GBP 1.2 billion of investment, leading to 2.2% asset growth. This was driven by significant progress on the Hinkley-Seabank connection and the second phase of our London Power Tunnels project. It was partly offset by lower spend in gas transmission following the completion of our Feeder 9 pipeline under the Humber. We're also investing in new technology to connect increasing levels of renewable generation on our electricity transmission system. We're working with a Californian company called Smart Wires to install smart power flow control devices that increase our network capacity without the need to build new lines. On the gas side, we've made significant advances with hydrogen, and our ambitious Future Grid project will test the options for repurposing the existing transmission network. Finally, much of our focus in the U.K. over the last 12 months has been on reaching a successful outcome for RIIO-T2. Over the 5-year price control, we expect substantially higher investment levels than in RIIO-T1, particularly in electricity transmission, where we expect to spend around GBP 8 billion. Whilst we were pleased with the improved package around investment levels in Ofgem's final determination, we still believe there are strong arguments for a higher cost of equity and that the outperformance wedge is conceptually flawed. The CMA has granted permission for our appeal. We'll work closely with them as this process moves forward through the summer. Looking now at National Grid Ventures and our other businesses. Investment of GBP 576 million was primarily focused on delivering our interconnectors. IFA 2 was commissioned in January. The North Sea Link with Norway and the Viking Link with Denmark are on track to come online in 2021 and 2024. Moving to the U.S., our onshore renewables business continues to grow following the completion of our acquisition of Geronimo last year, now renamed National Grid Renewables. You can see that we've delivered strong performance across our operations in what has been a very challenging year. With the strategic transactions we announced in March, we further strengthen the resilience of our business as we look to the future with a portfolio that places us firmly at the heart of the energy transition. It's against this backdrop that last month we set out our longer-term expectations for the group. The next 5 years will see us increase our capital investment to between GBP 30 billion and GBP 35 billion, the highest-ever level for National Grid. We expect this investment, together with the strategic transactions, to deliver group asset growth of 6%-8% per annum. We'll deliver this growth whilst maintaining a strong balance sheet with comfortable headroom at our current credit rating level. Growth in our assets drives growth in our earnings, with our group underlying earnings per share expected to grow by 5%-7% per annum on average. This will continue to support our policy of growing the dividend in line with CPIH. Let me now turn to our priorities for the year ahead, which are to complete our proposed transactions, maintain our regulatory progress, build momentum through stakeholder engagement, and crucially, to continue to lead the debate on climate action. Turning first to our transactions. We completed the acquisition of WPD on the 14th of June. We voluntarily notified the CMA of the acquisition, and as expected, they've issued an initial enforcement order whilst they undertake a merger review. During this period, we're required to run WPD independently from National Grid until the CMA review has completed. This is a very normal process, and we don't anticipate any issues. Preparations for the sale of our gas transmission business are well underway. We expect to launch the process in the second half of the year. Regulatory clearances regarding our Rhode Island business are also expected by the end of the financial year. On the regulatory side, we're working closely with our regulators in both the U.K. and the U.S., with a particular focus currently on the RIIO-T2 CMA appeal, which we expect to conclude in the autumn. Alignment between regulators, governments, and industry will continue to be critical as we position ourselves for a clean energy future. We've been encouraged in the last 12 months to see a greater level of political and stakeholder engagement across all aspects of the energy transition. As I've said before, our ambition is to enable the energy transition for all, and we'll continue to lead the debate on this. This November's UN COP26 conference in Glasgow provides us with the perfect platform to do just that. I'm really proud that National Grid is a principal partner of this event. The Responsible Business Charter we laid out last October sets out our ambitions and commitments to be a responsible business and was the result of extensive stakeholder engagement. We've identified five key areas, including the environment, our communities, our people, the economy, and governance, where we can really make a difference by ensuring responsibility is woven through everything that we do. We've also published, for the first time, our Responsible Business Report alongside our annual report. I'd encourage you to take some time to read this. It lays out the priorities we've set and the actions that we're taking in delivering our climate and responsible business goals. We'll be publishing it on an annual basis, enabling people to track our progress and bring in all of our sustainability reporting into one place. As a responsible business, we recognize the importance of being transparent with our shareholders on our role in tackling climate change. As a result, in March, we announced our intention to seek a non-binding advisory shareholder approval for our Climate Transition Action Plan at the 2022 AGM and for us to report on our progress annually thereafter. Since the publication of the Responsible Business Charter in October, we've committed to a new and more ambitious Scope 3 target, setting out in the Responsible Business Report, which differs to that in Resolution 20 in the Notice of Meeting. I'm pleased to announce that our new Scope 3 emissions target, which is aligned to the Science Based Targets initiative, is to reduce carbon emissions from our 2019 baseline by 37.5% by 2034. The Climate Transition Action Plan will set out our commitment to becoming a net zero business by meeting Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emission targets by 2050, our Scope 3 reduction target, and to transition the company to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement. To summarize, this is shaping up to be a defining year ahead for National Grid as we make a strategic pivot towards electricity, ensure we have the right regulatory frameworks to deliver, and use our voice to influence climate change. I'm very excited about delivering on the 5-year plans we've set out and the increasingly important role that National Grid is playing in the energy transition. Thank you very much for your attention, ladies and gentlemen, and I'll hand you to Mark. Thank you, John and Paula, and good morning to you all. I can confirm we are quorate, so we can proceed with the 2021 annual general meeting. Thank you to all of those who have registered their votes in advance. For those shareholders in person today, we will be deciding each resolution using the handsets you have been provided. The resolutions for today's meeting are set out in the Notice of Meeting, which was made available to shareholders on the 8th of June 2021. Your handset will not be activated for voting until I formally open the poll at the start of the question and answer session. At that time, instructions will appear on your handset. Please also refer to the handset instructions laid out in the leaflet you received during registration. If you have any problems, please raise your hand and someone will come and assist you. If you have already cast a proxy, you do not need to vote again today. If you do choose to vote again today, your votes cast at this meeting will replace any proxy you've lodged. Voting will remain open until I formally close the meeting. Final results of the voting will be available on our website and announced to the London Stock Exchange as soon as practicable. I propose that we take the 2021 Notice of Meeting as read. Thank you. The board is unanimously in favor of each resolution proposed and recommends that you vote in favor of all the resolutions. The voting system is now open, so you can cast your vote on all of the resolutions at any point from now until the close of the meeting. We'll now move to the Q&A session. In order to allow the board to answer as many questions as possible, please keep your questions brief, to the point, and avoid making lengthy statements. Any questions regarding your administration of your shareholding should be put to our registrar, Equiniti. If your questions cannot be answered today, we will investigate them and get back to you. We will begin the session with questions registered by shareholders ahead of the meeting via our website. I will then ask for questions from shareholders who have pre-registered their questions in person today. If you have not pre-registered your questions and would like to ask one, please make yourself known to the marshal at the appropriate time and a microphone will be brought to you. Please start by clearly stating your name and direct all questions to me as chair of the meeting. May I have the first question please, Justine? Thank you, Mark. Question 1 is from Mr. David Lithe. What protocols are in place to remove directors or NEDs, where they have been involved in activities in previous executive roles described as an abusive process and an affront to justice? What compensation, if any, is offered to such removed directors? Thank you for your question, Mr. Lithe. Hopefully, our search process should highlight any such abuse. However, in the unlikely event that this should arise, the matter would be taken up with the chair and board, which has the authority to require the NED to step down. There would be no compensation beyond outstanding fees paid, as NEDs are not eligible for severance. Next question please, Justine. This is from Kay Donovan. Kay Donovan is concerned that the board is being drawn into the toxic, divisive trend towards identity politics and quotas. Their concerns include the fact that politics should have no place on the agenda, promotion and appointment should be done solely on merit, and also questions the level of political donations made by the company. The shareholder seeks the reassurance that the board have understood these points and will act accordingly in a way that does not favor any persons or groups according to identity. Thank you for the question. Your point is well understood by the board, and I can confirm that all appointments and promotions are made on merit, taking into account the skills and experience required to drive the business forward. In the U.K., the company does not make political donations, in accordance with its policy on the matter. The authority in Resolution 16 is being sought simply to ensure that none of the company's activities inadvertently infringe the rules defined in the Companies Act 2006. In the U.S., we have made donations of $35,500 in compliance with applicable law in the U.S. Let's have the next question please, Justine. Thanks, Mark. Next question from Stuart Hicks. The internal control and risk management section of the annual report is silent on political risk. One key risk is that we are a U.K. company, but with significant business in the U.S. What is the risk in continuing to own these assets? Thank you for your question, Mr. Hicks. Political risk is and remains one of our principal risks and is addressed on page 26 of the annual report. We have owned assets in the U.S. for over 20 years, and we invest significant time to build relationships at both state and federal levels to minimize this risk. In a broader sense, we continue to work with all relevant stakeholders to ensure we understand and respond to shifting societal and political expectations and perceptions. Justine, the next one please. Next one is from Aviva Investors. They start by saying, "We would like to congratulate National Grid on their very comprehensive, Responsible Business Report, and also on their recent commitment to EV100, which sends an important demand signal not only to the U.K. but also to utility peers in the U.S. The Climate Action 100+ benchmark assessment published earlier this year revealed that National Grid did not meet any of the criteria to indicate that the company's CapEx outlook supports decarbonization or alignment with a 1.5 degree Celsius outcome." Please could the board firstly share the steps that it is taking to align the company's CapEx with its stated climate ambitions and a 1.5 degree more broadly, and secondly, provide a date by which shareholders can expect an update on progress. Great. Thank you for the question. I'm delighted that you appreciate the huge effort that has gone into preparing the Responsible Business Report. I will ensure your sentiments are passed on to the team. However, let me hand you over to John for a little more detail on this important subject. John? Thank you, Mark. People would've seen that we've recently set out our 5-year plans for our capital plans. We're intending on investing between GBP 30 billion and GBP 35 billion. That is going to be focused predominantly on our regulated networks in the U.K. and the U.S. That investment has been supported and is aligned with our regulators. At the same time, the plans that we have in place have been very much supported by our stakeholders as well. They have made it clear to us that as we support the energy transition, they want us to do it efficiently and make sure that it's affordable as well. With regards to climate change, you'll all be aware that we've had targets for net zero for some time. We've recently updated those to reflect the Science Based Targets initiative at less than 2 degrees Celsius. We're currently doing a little bit of work to see what we need to do with our plans to align to the 1.5 degrees Celsius. With regards to the RBC, the Responsible Business Charter, as you know, we published it this year, and what we look to do next year is now more align our capital plans with some of the benchmarks, including Climate 100. Great. Thanks, John. Justine, next question. Next question is from Tessa Young of PIRC, and it's on behalf of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum and Northern Trust. It's actually three linked questions. With the International Energy Agency issuing its net zero pathway, how will you be reflecting this in the development of your strategy and business plan? Buying WPD Group has sent a strong signal about the importance of electrification for the U.K.'s zero carbon future. What assurances can you give that investments in the gas business will not bake in stranded assets? Given that National Grid will have a pay policy vote in 2022, how can you ensure that remuneration schemes put climate at the heart of incentivizing executives? Thank you for that. These are really important questions. Thank you for them. I'm aware that you had a meeting with Paula last week, but I still think it's worth responding to your questions for the others attending this meeting. On the IEA, we think that we already have a reasonable alignment between our internal planning and the new IEA pathways. We will take time to look at it carefully, look at the detail, and continue to feed this into our strategic work at the board. Yes, we believe that owning WPD, together with our transmission business, will allow us, amongst other things, to be at the heart of the effort to decarbonize heat and to provide the infrastructure for electric vehicles, both of which are big components of the transition to a low carbon economy. The combination should also allow us to keep the cost of this huge transition as low as possible for our customers. On the gas business, we believe it will be needed in the U.K. for many, many years to come, both in the form of providing backup energy and/or transitioning to transporting lower carbon fuels, such as hydrogen or renewable natural gas. We believe it is premature to be considering stranded assets in the gas business at this time. Before I move to your remuneration question, let me see if John wants to add anything to these comments. Yeah. Thanks, Mark. Just two brief comments, actually. First of all, just to say we're hugely excited about the acquisition of WPD. It will make National Grid not only the largest transmission company, but the largest distribution company in the U.K. as well. It truly does mean that we're at the heart of the energy transition. Just to reinforce something you said on gas, Mark, when you stand back and you think about the practicalities, the engineering, the economics of it is quite clear that gas has got an incredibly important role to play in the energy transition. Of course, four times as much energy goes through our gas network as our electric network, therefore it's clear that there's an opportunity to do decarbonization of gas, it's going to play a critical role. Finally, just to say, Mark, any investments that we make in our gas networks always take into account the energy transition and are always supported by our regulators. Great. Thanks, John. On your remuneration point, let me hand you over to Jonathan Dawson, our Remuneration Committee Chair, as I know Jonathan has been giving a lot of thought to this matter. Jonathan. Thanks, Mark. The 2022 policy review absolutely, certainly will address ESG issues in our remuneration arrangements. It's essential. We said at our Investor Day last October, when we had a long seminar on ESG issues, both remuneration and more general business issues, that we intended to do this in the policy review. This was confirmed in the Remuneration Committee chair statement in the annual report and accounts. Tessa, we also discussed this when we met earlier this year in February with a number of your colleagues. As set out in this year's Remuneration report, we already incorporate a number of ESG elements in the annual bonus arrangements, but we fully recognize what's expected of a company like National Grid regarding ESG, and we've made a number of key statements of intent in this regard in the Responsible Business Charter, which John touched on in his presentation. Super. Many thanks, Jonathan. Next question, please. We've received some questions from Mr. Anthony Lee, all related to the reform of the U.K. electricity system. He says, "The government has said that it plans to reform the electricity supply system, reducing National Grid's role. Was National Grid plc given advance notice of these proposals? In the reform proposals, Ofgem has pointed out that there is a conflict of interest within National Grid as presently constituted. Does National Grid accept this, and does it have any way of resolving it?" Mr. Lee also asks, "How do these reforms affect the wisdom of the acquisition of WPD?" I think that's already been answered. Okay. Thank you, Justine, thanks for the question. I think it's probably easiest for me to just hand over to you, John, for a response. Thank you, Mark. First of all, to reassure you, yes, we've been fully involved. In fact, we've been working collaboratively with the government and Ofgem on the future role of the electricity system operator for several years. There's a recognition, I think, both from National Grid, from government, and regulators, that there's a need for institutional change as well as regulatory and market reform if we're going to successfully deliver the energy transition. Of course, the electricity system operator is part of that. The consultation that was announced last week, we welcome, and we're really looking forward to working with government and Ofgem to define the future system operator and any potential sales process as well. In terms of conflicts of interest, that was referenced in both Ofgem's consultation and BEIS's consultation last week. They talked about the potential or perceived conflicts of interest that could be between an electricity system operator and an asset owner, of which National Grid, of course, does both roles. They were also absolutely clear that there is no evidence whatsoever that National Grid has ever acted on that potential conflict of interest. In terms of how we've been addressing that, of course, over the last few years, we've legally separated out the electricity system operator from the rest of National Grid to make sure that those perceptions of conflicts of interest are dealt with appropriately. As we look forward, as the role of the future system operator is defined, we'll consider with government and with Ofgem what is the right separation and ownership model going forward. Finally, just on WPD, actually, as I said, the institutional arrangements do need to change for an energy transition. Actually, with National Grid owning WPD, we have a real opportunity to find holistic solutions. Actually, the changes that are being proposed are really helpful with the acquisition that we've done recently. Great. Thank you, John. Next question. Another couple of issues raised by Mr. Lee around U.S. versus European footprint. National Grid has made a large investment in the U.S. where it is allowed to be a producer rather than, or as well as, a transporter of energy. Is this the future for National Grid? Why does National Grid want to expand in the U.S. rather than in markets nearer to the U.K., such as in Europe? Is Brexit a problem, or are domestic markets in Europe more tightly controlled against foreign takeovers? Thanks. You need to remember National Grid has successfully owned and managed energy infrastructure in the U.S. for more than 20 years. The geographic and regulatory balance that our portfolio brings has enabled National Grid to be one of only a handful of customers to have consistently grown its dividend over that sort of timeframe. Once we complete our recently announced transactions, at least 40% of our assets will be U.S.-regulated assets, and about 50% will be regulated assets in the U.K. Therefore, about 10% of our assets will be in our National Grid Ventures business, where we will continue to grow our non-regulated business that will include low-carbon generation assets such as wind and solar. Neither Brexit nor control over foreign acquisitions in Europe have contributed to us not expanding in Europe. This has been more a function of lack of opportunities where we can see real value creation for our shareholders. I would add that we are completely comfortable with our current geographic footprint. We will therefore maintain this diversity going forward. Justine, next question. As a distributor rather than a producer of power, how feasible is it to expect National Grid to switch to renewable energy for the majority of the U.K.'s power needs? What influence does National Grid have, and within what timeframe would National Grid be able to supply the majority of the U.K.'s power needs from renewable sources? If so, what sources? Great question, but let me hand over to John for a full response. Thanks, Mark. There's a lot in that. It's probably worth just starting, I think, by just reflecting on how far the U.K. market has come, actually. If you go back to 2010, for example, about 40% of the U.K.'s electricity came from coal. Last year, it was less than 2%. Last year, for the whole year, more than 50% of the electricity produced came from zero carbon sources, so renewable energy like solar and wind, as well as the interconnectors, hydro, and nuclear. On the 23rd of May last year, we had the greenest day ever in the U.K. when 80% of all the electricity produced came from zero carbon sources. Actually, we've made a huge move as a country in terms of renewable and zero-carbon generation over the last decade. From National Grid's perspective as the electricity system operator, we've set out an ambition to be able to operate the system from 2025 with all the electricity coming from zero-carbon sources. Now, we're not saying that's going to happen in 2025, but we want to be ready, and therefore, we're developing all the tools that we need to be in a position to operate the system in that way. In terms of influence, really our role as National Grid, of course, is to transport electricity however it's produced. Fundamentally, what we need to do is to be in a position to be able to connect those renewable sources of generation, and the team is doing a fantastic job on that. Strategy is really down to government, and you would've seen at the turn of the year, the government announced its 10-point plan. One of the elements of that 10-point plan was to connect 40 GW of offshore wind in the North Sea by 2030. Now, that's a huge task, but if we make really good progress on that, within the next decade, we will very much, I expect, be in a position as a country where for the vast majority of the time, electricity is being produced from zero-carbon sources. Great. Thank you very much, John. Just as a reminder, voting is currently open to those in the room and will end when I formally close the meeting at the end of the Q&A session. We will now move on to the questions which have been registered by shareholders in the room today. Please may I have the first of these questions? Our first question is from Mr. Peter Torry. Peter Torry from Hainton. Torry. No, Torry, not sorry. I like this feeling. We can keep this going for ages. Madam Chair, welcome. Thanks for getting up so early in the morning. Sorry to hear about the bad weather you're having with the heat and the fires in California. I'm supposed to be there in California in September, it ain't going to happen. Individual shareholder from the beginning. I'm what the BBC refer to, patronizing and euphemistically, as an ordinary member of the public. That really rankles. It's two little things I wish to say. First of all, I so look forward to going to Birmingham. Excuse the voice, actually. I've dragged myself out of my sick bed this morning. I have got a terrible cold. Please excuse me. I do like my trip up to Birmingham every year, GBP 8 return from Marylebone Station, and enjoying the fresh pots of Birmingham and the nice lunch. This is cheap. It doesn't cost me anything to get here today. I miss Sir Peter. I really was looking forward to our friendly banter. We got on so well together. I did suggest to him once that we should become a comedy act, who would be the straight man, he had no hesitation to say, "Mr. Torry, I would definitely be the straight man." Please, when you see him, please convey my best wishes to him. I understand he's retired or he's moved on to other things. Give him my very best wishes, I'm so disappointed he's not here today, the trip to Birmingham. What I really get down to now is a very serious matter. We all agree the National Health Service, the frontline people, all those who've looked after us during the pandemic, the clapping of the hands, I cried every night when we did that. There's people behind the scene that we don't see of, that we take for granted. The people who supply the water, the gas, et cetera. We flush the loo, it disappears down a hole in the ground. All these people we don't see. In particular, of course, I really would, through you, Madam Chair, if I may, I'd like your permission to ask, when appropriate, the members here to join with me in expressing our appreciation by a show of a clapping of the hands to everybody who works in the National Grid who we don't see. We come home, we turn the switch on, the light comes on. We turn the gas, we get the heat, the central heating, et cetera. These are the things we take for granted. If there's no National Grid, none of these things would work. Please, if I may, if that should be your permission, Madam Chair, I now invite my fellow shareholders in joining me in a quick expression of our appreciation. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Mr. Torry. Very good to see you. First of all, we all miss Sir Peter enormously. As you know, there is a restricted amount of time that people can be on boards. That applies to chairs as well. Peter actually slightly overran his 9 years because we wanted him to see through the T2 negotiations with Ofgem. He was kind enough to do that. Yes, he is now retired. I'm sorry you're missing your trip to Birmingham. We decided to do the AGM in London just to give us maximum flexibility to fly in our U.S. colleagues, and particularly Paula, at short notice, and London was just a little bit easier to organize that if we could. Sadly, we haven't been able to do that. We'll be rethinking about our AGM commitments next year. It won't necessarily be London again. It might well be Birmingham again. Thank you for your questions, and thank you very much indeed, for the sentiment about the hardworking people in National Grid and the other utilities. I think they've done an absolutely fabulous job in very difficult circumstances. Very appropriate and thank you very much for that. Great. So- Next question. The second question is from Paul Castle. Good morning. My question is on the subject of cybersecurity. On page 27 of the annual report, in the operational risks, there's mention of the risk of a catastrophic cyber incident, which continues to increase this year. On the following page, on what the board is actually doing, the board reviewed and discussed reports on this cyber risk, twice during the past year. I just wondered why such an important subject as cybersecurity should only get a couple of discussion days. Great. Thank you, Mr. Castle. Absolutely pertinent question. Incredibly important. As we saw in the Ukraine probably a couple of years ago now, with the whole grid system being shut down because of a cyber event. It is an incredibly important matter in the business and we probably haven't dealt with the point in the report and accounts as clearly as perhaps we should have. What I can assure you is that we have an IT department that works full-time on cyber risk and managing that risk, and they do a very effective job. The Executive Committee will be very involved on a month-by-month basis, probably more frequently than that, in actually managing that risk. We, as a board, actually get an update from the CEO every single board meeting on cyber risk. We are very engaged with what is going on cyber risk. What we were referring to in that section of what we actually do was, as part of the formal business, we do what we call a deep dive twice a year. That's where we get in both the team that work on the cyber risk for us, but we also get some external experts into the boardroom to discuss the magnitude of the risk and the extent to which we are managing it well. We do a lot more than we were perhaps reflecting in the report. Thank you for your question. Next question is from Jill Castling. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Williamson, and all the other members of the board. Thank you for letting me ask a question. Now I need to put my glasses on to read it. How is the National Grid going to manage the increased demand for electricity from the increasing use of electric vehicles? I know this has been answered in part. in what you've said, I just wondered if you had any more comments. Thank you. Great. Thanks. Obviously, a very important part of the business. Let me see if John wants to add any additional comments to that. Yeah. Thank you. It's a great question. A question we get asked an awfully lot, there's not always a lot in the media, isn't there, about how National Grid's coping with electric vehicles. We do quite a lot of long-term scenario planning, first of all, to think about what would the world look like when you've got 30 million electric vehicles in the U.K. All the analysis that we do suggests that demand will go up, as you'd expect. It's a huge transfer of liquid energy onto the networks. Actually, there isn't an expectation that all that charging will happen during the peak. Broadly, we're expecting demand probably to go up around about 20%-25% over the long term. The network is built today to actually meet the peak demand on the darkest, coldest half hour of the winter. Therefore, there's lots of spare capacity in the network to absorb additional users coming on. Our expectation is that we'll see lots of smart chargers where people will plug them in at home or in different places. Not all of that charging will happen over the peak. Therefore, actually, it will allow us to optimize and manage the system in a much more efficient way. That's the sort of the macro picture. At a local level, and of course that's quite important to National Grid now that we've just acquired WPD, and really important for our distribution businesses in the U.S., there will be local areas that require reinforcement of the network because the network hasn't been built to support the levels of load that electric vehicles might bring. We've got plenty of time to do that, both in the U.S. and in the U.K. The levels of electric vehicles at the moment is still very, very small. It's a big topic, but it's a tiny percentage of the total that's actually used. That will gradually increase over time as the prices come down, and we'll invest in the network to make sure we can support that demand, both at a local level, but also at a national or regional level as well. Thank you very much. Great. Thanks for that, John. Right. I think, Mr. Farman is next, but I think, Mr. Farman, you want to raise your questions now? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. There are a number of questions, and because they're disparate, I wanted to ask them orally rather than have someone write them all out. They're on separate, discrete topics, and probably best answered one by one. First, Chairman, with due respect to Peter Torry, may I welcome strongly the idea of a London AGM? This is the capital, and National Grid plc is a FTSE 100 company. I, too, used to go to Birmingham, but the move from noon to earlier made it onerous and I stopped. Your thoughtfulness in holding the meeting at 11:30 here is appreciated. In normal times, it might lead logically to lunch, which would be welcome. Thanks, Mr. Farman. I think from your question and Mr. Torry's response, we're not going to make everyone happy, but we will definitely have a good think about that before setting the AGM next year. Thank you. Second point, Chairman, as one who, as a diversified shareholder, reads many annual reports, may I urge you to print future annual reports in black on white, avoiding pastel contrasts, and across page, not in columns, to save paper, and if read online, scrolling. There is an advantage in being able to read these bulky documents at speed, even if you're not the worst, pastel contrasts are sometimes grotesque. Have a look at page 41, where you've got a rectangle of orange with yellow, with white print. It's deplorable, especially in electric light. I assure you, my eyesight is rated excellent. If I'm finding it wearisome, presumably others are, even if they don't say so. Mr. Farman, thank you for that. I've had a quick look at that page, and it is tricky to read. We'll definitely take on board your comments. I think a bit like your first question, though, it's going to be impossible to please everyone on this matter. I think there'll be a lot of people that actually enjoy the color and the contrast that we provide. We'll definitely have a good think about your question when we prepare. Thank you. Annual report, pages 11 and 42 reports a contractor death in the U.S. How did this happen? Importantly, what precautions are there to prevent recurrence anywhere? Gosh. Yeah, these are always tragic events. The board, by the way, does spend a considerable amount of time with exactly the question that you have just asked. Let me turn to John for a little bit of the detail on that. Yeah. Thank you, Mark. This was a very tragic event where a contractor was effectively removing some old transmission towers that were being piled onto a flatbed truck. Unfortunately, he'd gone into the drop zone against the procedures that had been set out before the work had begun. One of the cut pieces of pipe, so these are very wide, sort of 48-inch wide, big steel structures, rolled off the flatbed truck and unfortunately landed on him. As Mark said, National Grid has a world-class safety record. Our lost time injury rate is 0.1, which is truly world-class. We always strive to get to a position where our lost time injury numbers are zero. Whenever we have an incident like this, whether it's with an employee or with a contractor, we do a significant and deep dive investigation to make sure that we've learned the lessons. That's what we did in this case. We learned the lessons. Those lessons were shared with all of our operational staff in both the U.K. and the U.S. A video was produced to show what happened and to explain exactly why it happened and how we avoid it going forward. We take these things very, very serious, but it was a very tragic event. I can reassure you that the lessons have been learned across the company. Thank you. Before moving on, I'd just make a supplementary comment on that without wishing to get the meeting involved in a lot of detail. I trust the company was suitably empathic in supporting any family he might have had in this tragic situation, because one does get reports of various companies having fatalities, sometimes in countries poorer than the U.S. One wonders about the loss of income in a bereavement situation, and I just leave you with that thought, and perhaps you would be abundantly considerate. Mr. Farman, it's a point well made, and I don't need to pass to John because I know that we are incredibly empathetic in these tragic events. All right. Thank you. I'd like to quote a sentence from annual report page 34, which perhaps you could elaborate on. "By investing efficiently in our networks" I'm sorry, I'm struggling with my handwriting. "We add to our regulatory asset base in the long term, and thus in contribution to delivering shareholder value." I want to ask more precisely about shareholder value, simply adding assets does not of itself generate profit. Could you tell us what was behind that statement? Right. John. Do you want to have a crack? Yeah. Thank you. The way that the regulation works in the U.K. is that when we invest in an asset, we will get both depreciation on that asset and a return. The value of the asset goes on the regulated asset base, and the revenues are driven from that. To the extent that we can deliver it efficiently, and that means delivering it at unit cost that's lower than has been set by the regulator, then we get to keep a share of the outperformance. Under RIIO-T1, we kept 50% for our shareholders, and 50% went back to customers. In RIIO-T2, that will actually be slightly lower based on what we've agreed with the regulator. It does create value. If we can deliver it efficiently, ultimately it will drive profits for our company, which are higher than if we delivered it at the unit cost or higher. Mr. Farman, that's very much being a regulated utility gives us that advantage. Your answer has actually triggered a supplementary thought about my earlier question about the annual report, which is, would you be careful about abbreviations? The all too common practice of stating the full version and the abbreviation in brackets is recurrently irritating because it imposes on the reader the task of remembering what was formerly mentioned whilst he's trying to concentrate on what follows. This is compounded by the writers of these reports being familiar with what they're talking about, whereas they are writing for, and should remember they are writing for, a lay audience. I would suggest that for the extra print it takes, you stop this practice of using abbreviations and just repeat the full version. Constructive suggestion, again, born of reading a lot of annual reports. Suggestion taken. Yep, we'll have a think about that. Fine. Thank you. Next question, which was preconceived, actually touches on Anthony Lee's. He and I seem to think alike in these matters. It was the rather vague government announcement of designs they had on National Grid, and concurrently, there is, I believe, a Labour nationalization proposal. Would you care to elaborate on your earlier answer in relation to both of those? I'm distinctly uneasy that a Conservative government, first of all, will ride roughshod through shareholder interests to pursue some dogmatic concept that it might have dreamed up, and concurrently there might be a quite separate riding roughshod where a Labour government come into power and seek to nationalize. Could you perhaps address those two issues in a little more detail? I'll ask John to just maybe add a couple of comments. John? Yeah. In the consultation that was published last week by the government, just to be very clear, it's talking about the electricity system operator, so a very small part of National Grid plc, an important part, but nonetheless a very small part. As I said in my earlier remarks, we've been working in collaboration with Ofgem and the government about how that role will evolve to support the energy transition. The consultation that came out last week suggested two things. Firstly, that the role of the electricity system operator should be expanded, and that would be very helpful in delivering net zero for the U.K. government. In expanding that role, it starts to, I guess, raise the question of where best should it sit. Should it sit with a private company like National Grid, or should it sit outside of National Grid? That was the second issue that was raised in the consultation, which is should the ownership move outside of National Grid? It is a consultation, there was a strong recommendation in that document for it to move outside of National Grid. We've always said that if the role expands to an extent that it just doesn't make sense, then we are very comfortable to work with government on that. It also, in the document, set out that there would need to be a sales process. Of course, the electricity system operator, there will need to be a sales process. The electricity system operator, like any business at National Grid, obviously, if we choose to sell it, then we would look to get fair value for our shareholders. The document recognizes that there will need to be a sales process if the conclusions of the consultation are as they've recommended. We will be responding to that consultation. As I said, we've been working in collaboration with them for several years, but we've been very clear that if the decision is to move it outside of National Grid, there will need to be a sales process. In the document, they haven't yet made a decision as to whether it's going to be an organization that's held in the public sector or whether indeed it's in the private sector but owned by someone other than National Grid. That is work to be done. In terms of nationalization more broadly for National Grid plc, clearly that was a debate that was going on prior to the last election and was part of the policy position of the Labour Party under the previous leader. Since then, the Labour Party has adapted its policy not just around nationalization for National Grid, but more broadly around nationalization for utilities. It's talked about needing to work in public and private partnerships. At this stage, there isn't much more detail than that, but as you imagine, we spend a lot of time engaging with all political parties, both in the U.S. and in the U.K., and we'll continue to, as we did previously, explain the benefits of National Grid being in private sector, being able to raise finance to deliver the net zero aspirations that government have. Thank you. That's helpful. The final points, Anthony Lee also touched on, perhaps could I expand it, which was the United States and diversification. I seem to be renowned for raising total shareholder return at AGMs. Yours 10-year is 147.3%. You are operating in a largely regulated industry, which arguably constrains you. I'm asking in essence what scope there is for greater diversification towards increasing shareholder return, whether that be-product diversification in inverted commas or geographical, your earlier answer was a bit disappointing in that regard. Again, I quote a sentence from the annual report, page 43, "The United States remains a critical growth driver of the business, and we will continue to make investment in the U.S." That's fine. What scope is there, for example, for expanding in the U.S. into other geographical areas, or indeed, despite your earlier answer, Mr. Williamson, into other countries? Again, in the interests of long-term shareholder return. Fairly going to pass that one to you as well, John. Happy to take it, Mark. First of all, let me say that I think if you look back over the last 10 years, then the geographic and regulatory diversity that National Grid has by operating in multiple jurisdictions in the U.K. and U.S. has driven very good total shareholder returns. Across the 10 years, I think it averages around 10% per annum versus the FTSE 100 around about six. I think having that diversity has proven to create real value for National Grid. In terms of the growth of the U.S. business relative to the group and relative to the U.K., as I said earlier, we've set out an investment plan for the next five years of GBP 30 billion-GBP 35 billion. Around GBP 17 billion of that sits in the U.S., of that 30 to 35, and the asset base in the U.S. is growing probably at the top end of our 6%-8% range that we quote in our five-year projections. Actually growth in the U.S. is stronger at the moment than it is in the U.K. That oscillates over a period, I've been around a long time, there are periods when the U.K. grows faster than the U.S. and vice versa, and it's that geographic and regulatory diversity that I think gives us the consistency of our investor proposition. In terms of looking to other geographies, at the moment, our focus has been to the U.K. and U.S., and that's because we have a significant number of opportunities, both organic, in terms of supporting the energy transition in both the U.K. and in the U.S., as well as underlying investment for asset health, reliability, and resilience. We're seeing very strong organic growth in both our U.K. and U.S. businesses. Of course, when opportunities do come up to do inorganic growth, such as the one that we just recently announced, then we've taken those opportunities. The WPD transaction is a huge transaction, but it positions us very well for the energy transition. As I said, it puts us at the heart of the energy transition in the U.K. We expect to see strong demand growth for electricity, not just over the next few years, but for several decades to come. With that organic growth, together with taking sensible positions on inorganic growth, we're very comfortable with the overall shape of the group. As Mark said, we'll be 50% U.K. networks, 40% U.S. networks, 10% our non-regulated business. We've actually got stronger growth in our U.S. business today than in the U.K. That will vary over time as we go forward. Having that focus, I think, delivers that consistency of shareholder return. Sorry, Mr. Farman. I just want to add a bit to that. One of the board's big responsibilities is to think about the strategy of the business over the long term, to create value over the long term, therefore, those strategic questions that you are asking are considered very seriously by the board over a period. One of the advantages of having tenures to director tenure on the board is to get fresh thinking. With Paula coming on board now, she's definitely asking us some very, very serious strategic questions. I think I'm going to risk the technology for a few minutes and just see. Paula, is there anything that you'd like to add to John's comments? Well, we're about to test the technology and see if it works, and I guess it does because I can hear myself reverberating here. Thank you, Mr. Farman, for all these questions. I think a part of the role of a responsible board is the fact that it, on the one hand, supports management, and on the other hand, it gives good challenge. The frame that John has just described is really fit for purpose at this point in time. We also realize as a board, as citizens, as shareholders, that the world is moving pretty quickly. This energy transition, on the one hand, is very ambitious and very exciting, on the other hand, very challenging to deliver. We are going to have to continue to sort of reconsider our business mix, how resilient it is against a changing world, against shareholder preferences, against changing economic and financial parameters that exist. I will share that the board is meeting after this meeting, and one of the things it's going to review is its own calendar of how these issues are going to continue to be presented and debated in a very open manner to make sure that at all times, the plan that John has laid forth, that the board currently supports, remains fit for purpose. Nothing is forever, and the real trick to a really strong company is that ability to navigate through changing times. With John and the team's leadership and a well-constituted board, I can assure you that these questions will continue to be debated. Well, thank you for that. I'd really finished, but it just prompts me to ask, as by way of rounding off, would you like to take this opportunity to say a little more in summary about your non-regulated business, 10% of total? What are you doing and why? What else might you do gainfully in that domain? Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Farman. John, just some very brief comments. I think we are pressed for time. Mr. Farman, you'll probably be aware that our focus over the last period has been in two areas. One is investing in our interconnectors between the U.K. mainland Europe. As you know, we've invested in a French interconnector, Belgium, Dutch, Norway, and which one have I missed? Viking. A significant level of investment in interconnectors. At the same time, in the U.S., we've been focusing on renewables, both onshore solar and wind, and recently we've entered into a partnership with RWE to look at offshore wind. Really why we do it is because we've got fantastic capabilities within National Grid. These are in adjacent markets where we can use those capabilities to potentially create stronger returns for our investors than you would see in regulated networks. We do it in a very disciplined way, those have been the areas of focus. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you all in London next year. Great with lunch. Thank you, Mr. Farman. Great to hear that you diligently go through our annual report every year. Thank you very much for that. Let's move on. Who's next? Justine? We have Mr. Lawrence Corbett. Okay, Mr. Corbett. Thank you, Chair. I've got some concerns over the legal issues in the U.S. about some dubious practices. Can this affect a license that National Grid hold there? I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to. What issues? Sorry? Legal issues. Oh, it's a legal issue. Justine, do you want to I'm not sure, Mr. Corbett, can you be more specific about what legal issues you're referring to? We're not aware of any legal issues which are affecting our license in any way. It was in one of the financial papers at the weekend, that National Grid's under investigation over some dubious practices. Okay. Let me hand on, John. Yes got a solution of it. Yeah. Thank you for the question. This relates to some former employees that the attorney general is investigating. This relates to a fraud issue. The attorney general has made it very clear that National Grid is the victim here, and as you can imagine, National Grid is fully cooperating with the attorney general in their investigation. At the same time, as we always do, we're undertaking our own internal investigation and working very closely with the New York regulators on that. If there are recommendations that require us to change any of our processes, then, of course, we'll do that. I just want to stress, National Grid operates with the highest levels of ethical standards, and the alleged actions of a few certainly do not represent the thousands of people that work for National Grid every single day with the highest levels of ethical standard. Okay. My other issue is corporate governance. Jonathan Dawson's been on the board for eight years now. What plans are there to appoint somebody else to succeed him? Great. Well, Jonathan has given us great service over his eight years, as you allude to, he will be moving off the board probably sometime next year. Paula has put in place succession plans for that. She mentioned it in her speech. Ian Livingston is just about to join the board and will progressively take over the Chair of the Remuneration Committee. My other question is overboarding. Three of the directors on the board have multiple outside directorships. What number does National Grid have as a limit? Well, firstly, we think it's healthy for board members to have other board positions. I think it is very helpful for us all to see governance working in different organizations, development of strategy working in different organizations, and bringing the best practice to the board. one additional board membership is encouraged and is welcomed. Before any board member is appointed to the board, one of the questions we'll very carefully think about is overboarding. We'd normally look at, it's really three organizations that really have very clear views on that, and that's BlackRock do, The Investment Association do, and ISS do. All our board members comply with those rules. There are a couple of board members, I think Jonathan Silver has got a number of appointments, but quite honestly, these are very small companies that require very little of his time. We're very comfortable that Jonathan has more than enough time to devote to his responsibility on the board of National Grid. I'm glad you mentioned Jonathan Silver because another question I have is he doesn't have any shares in National Grid. It's not a requirement for non-execs to own shares in National Grid. I might have a little chat with Jonathan after the meeting. I shan't be voting for him to be reelected. The other comment that's been referred to is I've been a long-term shareholder since National Grid was privatized, and this is the first time I've attended a meeting because it's in London. When I spoke to Sir Peter Gershon, I think he is, some years ago when he was on the board of another company at an annual general meeting in Victoria, the QE2, I asked him why they have their meetings in Birmingham. One of the excuses he gave was there's a lot of shareholders in the Midlands. I said to him, "I'm sure there's even more shareholders in London and the South East." He expressed that one of the other reasons was the cost of having a shareholder meeting or an AGM in London. I'm so pleased that it's now in London. I can now finally, after I don't know how many years, attend a board meeting. Hopefully next year we'll be back here. We've taken on board your comments. I think, well, he might have mentioned shareholders, of course, but we do have a significant business in the Midlands, so that is one of the considerations we have. We need to think it through carefully and choose our location carefully. Okay. At the beginning of the annual report, it says that you're retiring from the board at the end of this AGM. Is this correct? I am definitely retiring, as I will come to the end of my nine years on the board. Okay. Paula's going through a process of refreshing the board, and appointing new board members. I shall not be here at the next AGM. Oh. I have very much enjoyed my time on the National Grid board. Super company. Wish you the best of luck. Thank you. Right, Justine, where to now? I believe we have one question in the room, which is about a mechanism for purchasing shares, which I suggest I take offline. Sounds good. Speak to the shareholder after, if that's acceptable. Is that- That's the only one I'm aware of. whoever raised that? Very good. I think, therefore, we are done with questions. Thank you very much indeed, everyone, for that. I'll now bring this meeting to a close. Before I do, I'd just like to thank Paula and Jonathan for joining us remotely today. I know it's always slightly nerve-wracking doing these things over the internet. This means that for those of you in the room, voting on the resolutions has now closed. That concludes the business of our meeting, and I therefore declare the 2021 AGM closed. As I mentioned earlier, the final results of the voting will be available on our website and announced to the London Stock Exchange as soon as practicable. Please ensure that you return your handset when you leave the room, and thank you very much for joining us today. To those of you who have joined us in person today, I hope you have a safe journey home. Thank you very much.