All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I think it's time to kick off, so good morning. Welcome to King Edward's Hall for the half year results for National Grid for 2013, '14. And thank you for joining online for those of you who are joining us. My name's John Dawson, Head of Investor Relations for National Grid. And with us today, of course, are Steve and Andrew, who will go through our results presentation in a minute. Before we start, a couple of notices, please could you ensure you turn off all your mobile phones and other electronic devices. That would be very helpful. We will have a full Q&A session at the end. Please wait for the microphone before asking a question just so we can get it recorded and your question can be heard online. We may include forward-looking statements in our presentation today so, of course, please read our cautionary statement in full, which you can see here behind me now. With that, let me hand over to Steve.

Thank you, John. Good morning, everybody. The running order for today begins with a few remarks from me on the highlights of the first half, then Andrew will take you through the details of our financial performance for the first 6 months, together with some comments on the financing of the group, and the reporting implications of RIIO, some of which, of course, we introduced at our seminar back in August. I'll then return to talk about the investment environment and the implications for us at National Grid as we see it today and, of course, our progress against this year's priorities and the outlook for the rest of the year. We've got with us this morning, as usual, Nick Winser and Tom King. We're also joined by John Pettigrew, who's our COO for the U.K. businesses. We've made a solid start to the year as we begin our new regulatory arrangements in both the U.K. and the U.S. And we finalized the important foundations in the U.S. that are critical for future filings and performance improvements. I'd summarize here with we're very much on track. In the U.K., we've made good progress managing our costs and outputs against the regulatory targets in all of our businesses. We're close to completion now of a thorough reorganization of the U.K. business, providing costs and operating efficiencies. And in addition, we started to see the benefits of cost and service improvements, resulting from negotiations with suppliers and long-term partners. More on that in a moment. In the U.S., we're on track towards a robust and satisfactory full year out-turn. The new rate plans in Rhode Island and New York are providing a secure framework for key parts of the business. And we're continuing to invest in network improvements and asset replacement required…

Thank you, Steve, and good morning, everybody. Steve has highlighted our results reflect the steady progress we've made for the first half and towards our full year, meeting our full year expectations. But before I start, I'd like to discuss how financial reporting and performance measures will be impacted by RIIO. In the new world of TotEx, measuring performance of our U.K. business requires additional information, which is only produced on an annual basis. Analysis of IFRS operating profit movements without this context doesn't give the full picture of the value we are creating. At the full year, you should expect additional more detailed disclosures around regulatory returns, regulatory revenue movements and IOUs, and regulatory asset values. All of the items our U.K. CFO, Andy Agg, discussed with you in August. In the meantime, operating profit remains the focus of our interim reporting, but as this does not include the capital efficiency and incentive benefits that will be discussed at the full year results, we've reduced the amount of commentary in the interim statement. You will have noticed a change in that we've split our U.K. transmission businesses into 2 segments, reflecting the increased differences in the 2 price controls and you should expect to see that going forward as well. Let's look at our financial performance in the first half of the year. And unless stated, the quoted numbers will reflect business performance. Electricity Transmission operating profit was up 12% due to higher revenues from increased regulatory allowances, including the link to RPI, and increased profitability of the French interconnector, which performed very well in the first half of the year. Gas Transmission operating profit decreased by 18% compared to the same period last year. This is due to a change in the timing of permit revenues and a…

Thank you, Andrew. And while we've been focused on execution and delivering the benefits of our new regulatory arrangement, the news flow here in the U.K. in terms of energy policy, generation margins and potential price caps has created a huge amount of uncertainty, all of which I'm sure you're very aware, in particular, around the timing of investment in new power generation. This is in contrast to the U.S. where interestingly, the focus seems to move the other way. All 3 states in which we operate are focusing on customers' needs for future investment. Net-net, we still see plenty of opportunity for organic investment. In other words, where we can invest at 100% of RAV or rate base on both sides of the Atlantic and drive sustainable value. But let me take you through these in a little bit more detail, starting here in the U.K. And to remind you of our thinking, only last year when we're in the process of agreeing our forecast expenditure allowances for the RIIO period with Ofgem. The headline allowances for TotEx was set based on our Gone Green scenario with a number of agreed overlaid adjustments. Broadly, this meant that over a 10-year period, the 8 years of RIIO and a further 2 years, 34,000 megawatts of new generation would connect. The 2,000 megawatts a year expected for the first 3 to 4 years of that period and the headline allowances for those early years reflected a growing amount of load-related expenditure and a relatively flat profile for non-load related investments, together, of course, with the previously agreed large strategic reinforcement projects. Since then, unsurprisingly, we've seen a slowdown in the start of new generation construction. Currently, just under 2,500 megawatts of new generation will require connecting to the transmission system over…

Okay. Let's, if I may, Mark, just use your question -- just to talk about this issue for a second. Affordability is a real issue. It's not a joke. It's a serious issue, but it's only one of the issues that we clearly have to address. Reliable energy supplies is equally a very important issue, not just for the consumers, but also for the economy. And of course, we've got our desire to ever progressively clean up the mix of energy. I mean, that trilemma exists in the U.K., exists all over the world. Getting the debate and getting the balance and the trade-off right is something that needs to happen and happen pretty quickly. Our business, of course, has just been through, as you all know, a really rigorous review by Ofgem and by stakeholders of the costs of running our business, providing reliable, safe networks day in, day out, as well as stress testing the GBP 26 billion of investment that we need to make. So just been through that 2-year review period, and that's contributed an GBP 11 increase to the increase in bills this year. So the GBP 100-odd that we were paying as consumers extra this year if we're an average bill payer, GBP 11 of that is we're going to associate with beginning of the RIIO period. For the next 7 years, that's an increase of GBP 1 RIIO per year for the next 7 years. That's all it is, which allows us to run these businesses in the way that we have in the past and equally invest GBP 26 billion of critical investment that's required. So I think that, that's what we need people to actually focus on. But it's right there's a debate about the balance of and how quickly should we clean up our energy mix. But we clearly need to make sure, as I was remarking, that generation gets built in this country, so pretty quickly getting back to what needs to happen, get this Energy Bill through Parliament. That piece of legislation is crucial to give investors the clarity for the future. And let's not forget just how stable the U.K. has been such for a long period of time. The World Energy Council actually do a ranking on sustainable energy investment environment to deal with policy and regulation. The U.K. is in the top 5. That's not surprising. We've attracted a huge amount of investment over the past. We're now entering a phase where we need more investment than ever, so creating confidence, real stable environments, the right incentives and the confidence that our regulatory environment that have worked so well for a long period of time aren't interfered with the short-term initiatives is hugely important. Andrew, do you want to pick up?

Yes. Mark, on exceptionals, we have never included exceptionals within ROE calculations. That's never been part of the calculation methodology. On the gas hold, of course, part of the reason why they have been classified as exceptional is, a, the size of them. It is a one-time, because effectively, now, we are in a situation where we'll be demolishing them over a period of time, and we'll actually receive some return from Ofgem, but it'll be spread out. But because the decision has been taken to transfer them out of Gas Distribution into the property company effectively, it triggers the charge, so it's -- effectively, that's the way it – what's triggered it.

Thanks, Mark. Dominic?

Yes. Dominic Nash, Macquarie. Two questions as well, please. First one is one is going off of Mark's question that if -- what proportion of your revenues come from retail? And if the credit ratings of U.K. retail gets cut, is there any credit impact on yourself or your ability to raise debt? And secondly, on interconnections, as the carbon tax starts to really kick in, in the U.K. power price divergence from Europe, do you see further opportunities in building interconnectors in this? Could this be quite a major profit driver for you going forward?

Okay, let me -- hang on. Nick, you might actually pick up the complexity of the way the retail charges flow through and the surety that we have actually of who picks up those charges. But let me just take the second one first because it is an important point, in this overall context of securing the lowest possible cost, reliable energy supply as we can in the U.K. It's been very clear for a long time that the U.K. is under-interconnected against the position that it would like to be. And there were a number of projects, as you well know, that have been -- in my part, on the drawing board for a long time, a long time. And we need some of those to actually come to fruition, so certainty around the regulatory regime is important. We've just actually had a piece of independent work done by consultancy to look at if we were more interconnected. If 3 extra gigawatts of interconnection was available, what might the benefit be to the U.K.? That analysis has GBP 1 billion a year potentially for 20 years by equalizing prices and allowing customers in the U.K. access to lower-cost electricity. So we're very determined, Dominic, to try and find the right regimes around an opportunity to build more interconnectors as soon as we can. They're challenging from a technical front, but we've proven that we can do that. And I think it's a big piece of the mix in the jigsaw for the future, ensuring we get reliable supplies, but likewise, doing that at the lowest cost to customers. Nick, the way our retail charging works and the others pick up if, by implications, somebody fails, I guess, is your question, Dominic.

So the arrangements in the industry are designed to include provisions for the failure of say, a DNO, for distribution come [ph] for the special administration powers in there. That's -- they are included in that to give certainty that the industry will continue to function in that way. So ultimately, that's the assurance that sits in the whole of the regulatory structure against -- I mean, I think it's a remote possibility, but against the failure of a distribution company because of a -- or a supply company because of a price freeze of some form.

John, go ahead. There's one question behind.

It's John Musk from RBC. Two sort of numbers questions. Firstly, on the scrip dividend and I guess related to CapEx, which is yet again coming in a bit lower than what you would have guided a few months back, for this year and for next year, how does that balance into decisions around the scrip dividend, because it would appear that the savings from CapEx are roughly equal to some of the savings on the scrip dividend or -- so does that play into your decision on maintaining the scrip dividend over longer term? And then secondly, just a simple one. On the SAP implementation cost, can you just update on what the total costs are now for the SAP implementation? And is there any way you can talk about a payback period on those costs?

Andrew, costs overall? I'll do payback.

Okay. On the scrip dividend first, to start that, on the -- where we are on that is the RCF-to-debt metric is not impacted by CapEx, so it's a pre-CapEx measure. RCF-to-debt is probably the most important of the credit metrics, where scrip benefits is from. So to be honest with you, the CapEx change has no impact on decisions relating to that. As regards SAP costs, we've capitalized about $240 million of spend, which is actually going into rate, and that will be recovered through future rate -- other future rate filings, but it's already in, for example, Niagara Mohawk, and we will be recovering that. Obviously, the expenses last year was about GBP 112 million, and the GBP 90 million we've incurred this year to date will actually just be -- basically will not be recovered through rates. The quicker we get things obviously running back up and forward, the quicker we can actually move into a more regular rate filing process, so that will be the way we get the payback, John, through SAP, as well as, obviously, efficiencies from running the business better.

Is that -- you got...

Yes. So is the total -- sorry, is the total cost, the GBP 240 million, and we can add on the GBP 112 million and the GBP 90 million as well?

Yes.

Yes. And important point in there is this is not our finest hour. The costs of remediating this system are to our account. Investment in the system originally that will benefit customers and replaces systems that had to be replaced, we enshrined in loss of rate plans. But all remediation is to our cost actually. And yes, when we're through, we'll get the benefits. But as I said, we have to replace these whole systems. The systems will deliver benefits, but don't deliver any benefit until we get these problems resolved and get the system working properly. Do you want to go to Ed, and then we'll come over to Peter over here? Edmund Reid - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Edmund Reid from JPMorgan. Two questions. The first one is on U.S. transmission. I believe there was a ruling earlier this year about ROEs in U.S. transmission. I want to understand what that meant going forwards in terms of return? And then secondly, I don't want you to go through the entire presentation you gave earlier this year, but the impact of lower U.K. CapEx on your earnings under RIIO?

Okay. Just first, I want to make a remark, and then Tom can pick it up. The challenge to ROEs is continuing. That has not yet run its full course actually in terms of the decision, so Tom can comment on exactly where that is. That's been going on now for 18 months plus. The -- in terms of future investments, as I talked about these things, there's opportunities intentionally. When those projects come to fruition and they go through a filing and we know the return, then we have a decision to make about whether that return, we believe, is adequate for us to invest. So that's a decision that pending for the future obviously. But the challenge to ROEs in the Northeast has been going on now for, as I said, at least 18 months and continues. Tom?

Yes. Ed, the -- it is a challenge in the Northeast. I think now, it's national. As you know, there's been other regional challenges to it. So ultimately, where the U.S. sits relative to the ROE decision is really the composition of FERC. We now have a chairman that is leaving. There was a chairman nominated, that's been withdrawn. So where the FERC finds itself, it's in a basically a 4-commissioner chairmanship -- excuse me, commission. The expectation is this issue doesn't really move forward until we get a new commissioner named and then get confirmed by the Senate, and then this issue will pick back up and be a large debate within the U.S. Ultimately, the debate gets to the broader issue of commission policy on incentives and returns to attract investment in transmission. I think that will play out in 2014, and we really won't get a decision until the second half of calendar 2014. As to the -- your term, the decision reached within our filing, that was only an administrative law judge recommended decision, so it's basically been put aside, waiting for the commissioners to be named and the commission to move forward with the overall major policy issue.

And even a sort of broader ruling would be less than $10 million impact on revenues, so it's very, very small.

Okay. Peter?

Peter Atherton from Liberum. Three questions, but they're all pretty simple. [indiscernible] Firstly, on SAP, obviously, there's cost implications of a difficult implementation. But are we going to have any secondary implications around your customer service levels or regulatory information flows that could lead to other actions onto the company the future? On Labor's sort of proposals, one of their proposals is to abolish Ofgem and replace it with something else. Now I'm sure you would hope and expect that Ofgem, Mark, [ph] too, would just pick up the current regulation and carry it forward. But have you actually had specific discussions with Labor yet about that and have you received direct assurances from them that, that wouldn't be the case? And then thirdly, on the sort of hiatus in new build generation in the U.K., how long before you move from sort of -- I mean, sort of use my own words here, but sort of amber alert on security supply to red alert? And almost how long could that pause go on for before you start to get particularly concerned?

Okay. Good questions. I'm not sure they're short questions, Peter, but nevertheless, short to ask. SAP, I mean, simple answer is no. We did have some serious issues at the beginning of last year to deal with payroll systems not working. We've worked through all of that. And in the U.S., they did lead to some challenges from outside in both New York and Massachusetts, all of those have been fully resolved and that system is now working. It's just the rest of the system we've got to continue to get implemented and then get into our rate filings. And this will, as I said, I mean one of the benefits of this systems ultimately is the amount of double, triple checking we've done on our rate filings to make sure that data is absolutely accurate. That's one of the things that when the SAP system is working, it will relieve those costs in the future. Ofgem, it's not for me to comment on the future of Ofgem. That's clearly a political decision. I guess the only observation I would make is the fact that Ofgem do quite a lot of things, don't they, and I don't think that's widely understood. Their focus on the regulation of monopoly networks, which, of course is our piece of the business. I think if you go around the world, they're held in really high esteem actually. It's the way [ph] investment is flowed to the U.K. Their introduction of incentive-based regulation is something that many others have copied elsewhere in the world, and RIIO already looks as if it looks quite sensible in terms of the mechanisms of flexibility that have been put in place and not least the fact that everything we can do to drive down costs will benefit bills in…

Yes. The only thing I'd add over the 5-year period is it sort of -- it depends on GDP. The -- and Ofgem ran a good sensitivity action in the winter outlook on GDP. I mean, broadly, the projections that we did at winter outlook that we picked up on the forecast economic growth then, you set at these sorts of type, but manageable margins right through to the end of the decade as long as all of the existing generation stays on, because basically, you've got electricity demand gradually easing away. We need to keep an eye on that and see what's happening in terms of updating those GDP growth figures and just see how that comes into play and we'll do that annually in a normal process. But I think that's the additional thing to watch.

Yes, it is. And just FYI, demand on the Electricity Transmission system in the U.K. first half of the year on last year, on a weather-normalized basis, down 0.7%, going the right direction. Bobby, and we'll come back to Dominic.

It's Bobby Chada from Morgan Stanley. I just wanted to follow up on some of these investment options that you've been talking about or have highlighted in the presentation. So does the Long Island generation -- is that something that you would expect to go into rate base? The same for the transmission project, I assume that's going into rate base. And will you have to file and agree those with the state regulators in advance? And then on Clean Line, is it going to be a pure regulated transmission piece or will there be a merchant aspect to it?

Rate base and some merchant, it'll be a PPA on Clean Line where the capacity will be bought by someone to transmit their renewable energy for a 20-year period, a bit like an interconnector actually. But notices hasn't been made on any of these yet. I just wanted to give you an update from it's quite interesting actually how some of these things are clearly accelerating in the course of the last 6 months. Our investment thesis is not changing. We like investing in regulated assets. We don't put our cash to work until we totally understand the way in which we'll collect our revenues and that those revenues are secured. It's exactly the way that we look at all 3 of those opportunities.

And to Dominic's -- to follow-up on Dominic's question about interconnectors and the carbon arbitrage, if you like, do you see much demand from people to sign up for -- because I assume you wouldn't do an interconnector unless you had committed effectively take-or-pay contracts just like on some of the Clean Line stuff?

That's the whole debate that's going on to a certain extent about, do you wait for customers to come or is the benefit for the U.K. of interconnectors so much actually that we should be investing as a society in that important infrastructure and underpinning that investment somehow. So Ofgem are out thinking about the different mechanisms. They're doing the right thing, asking what's the mechanism that ensures that we get these investments made and how do we make sure the customers aren't paying too much for it. We do need a framework created pretty quickly though because as I've said, I think these are important. And then – go on then, and then pass forward to Martin.

Lakis Athanasiou, Agency Partners. If I read what you're saying correctly on CapEx in the U.K. this year and next, you seem to be on a trajectory that is significantly below the baseline by a few hundreds of millions of pounds, looks to be mainly in Electricity Transmission. Could you give a flavor of why that -- what that's coming from? Is it in terms of outputs, in terms of short-term re-phasing and in terms of efficiency?

The number that I'm -- it's -- there are 2 things going on here. So we'll talk about efficiencies at full year. That's exactly we'll talk about at the full year because we're only halfway through. So what will affect that number overall, as we've signaled before is, if we're successful, it will be lower. That's what TotEx is all about actually. Those benefits will get shared, investors and customers. But I'm identifying very clearly that the connections piece is reducing. Only last week, we announced the postponement of a project across Suffolk, Bramford to Twinstead. It's a GBP 100-plus million project. Not huge in the context of things over many years, but that's indicative of the fact that connections have gone back. So the reduction in CapEx is purely associated with connections reduction, but then our savings, and we'll cover that off very fully in the full year.

So there hasn't really been any short-term re-phasing stuff? It's a mixture of connections and efficiency?

Yes, it is. Martin?

Yes. Martin Brough from Deutsche Bank. A couple of questions, one on smart meters, and the rollout timetable got pushed back a year. And obviously, it's good for the legacy gas meters. But in terms of the Gas Distribution obligations to facilitate some of the rollout and the costs that might be incurred, could you just talk about those costs over the next few years and whether you'll have to sort of go back and ask for some of that to be recovered? And then the second question was, Boris and his island -- and the Isle of Grain, have you spoken to him about that?

Well, on the first question, we have no costs associated with the smart meter rollout at all. It's -- we're not in that business. The business -- it doesn't affect our regulated business at all. Clearly, the rundown on meters, as you rightly identified, the retirement of the old gas meters, continues to -- every year you look at it, it seems to go back slightly. But we will not be investing in anything that's associated with the implementation of smart meters. The business we have that might have been onstream, we sold 2 years ago.

As I understand -- or some of the other gas distribution networks seem to think that they will have more callouts and more costs, and that there isn't a mechanism in the control [indiscernible].

Yes. Well, if you're assuming that a contractor who does a smart meter then doesn't install it properly and there's a gas leak, we might get more callouts, I agree. It's not something that we've looked at, at all, frankly. We expect the supplier companies that are responsible for the rollout to ensure that the meters are correctly and safely installed. What's your -- the second point?

Isle of Grain.

Isle of Grain. Yes, we have done a lot of communication for a number of years now to explain that, that airport actually is close to the Isle of Grain LNG terminal, in which we've invested just shy of GBP 1 billion, potentially imports 24% of the U.K.'s gas. So if you're thinking of building an airport there, you just have to have a broader thought process about -- that's going to need moving somewhere and it's going to cost rather a lot of money. I think some of the publicity recently has come through to sort of identify that to a few more people than perhaps have realized it before. And it's not just our facility. There were a lot of other industrial facilities, as you know, on the Isle of Grain. Peter first, and then to Iain.

It's Peter Bisztyga from Barclays. Two questions. Firstly, about the U.S., as you see demand for new gas connections grow over time, is there a risk of -- is there going to be a growing risk of a mismatch between when you spend the money and when you get the returns for it? Or do you expect the regulation to evolve in the U.S. in a similar way to that which it has done in the U.K.? And then secondly, just going back to the U.K. politics, has the Labour Party engaged with National Grid at all on any of their sort of proposed policies and what the implications of delayed generation investment might be?

On the second one, no is the answer. I don't think they've come out with a fully thought through policy yet. Actually, that's what I understand they're working on. So we've not been in debate on that. On gas, in the U.S., we're working with 2 of our rates [ph] in particular. In fact, all 3, in reality, but certainly, in New York at the moment and in Massachusetts, about how can these investments to expand the gas system get made in a strategic sense because it needs -- these aren't about connections, the simple easy connections, the ones that are being done. But there are still just under 1 million consumers in our franchise areas who today are heating their homes with oil who can use gas. But to capture them, the networks need some pretty big expansions. Of course, this happened in the U.K. a very long time ago. How do you socialize the funding of those big expansions? Those discussions are alive at this very moment to put in place the regulatory arrangements so that we are incentivized to get on with those investments. And they'll certainly be a big part of the -- of what's called KEDLY, the old KeySpan business on Long Island where there's a huge chunk of customers there, almost 450,000 who want to get a gas in count [ph] today. So it would be at the heart of that rate plan which we're expecting to file in the second half of 2014. Iain?

It's Iain Turner from Exane. Just a couple of questions. Firstly, what does $0.5 billion of SAP expenditure actually look like on the ground? It seems an amazing amount of money for new IT systems, and putting them right. And then secondly, on the CapEx and the kind of slippage, you talked about how you think, over the 8-year period, you'll catch up it. And I just wonder to what extent that's a little bit of wishful thinking. Because if you look at things like gas storage, the government is not going to support that now, with a subsidy. And I think, from memory, and it's a slightly hazy memory, there was about $800 million of CapEx in your GT1 business plan for connecting up storage. And then things on the generation side of things, like new nuclear, that seems to be slipping back to the right-hand side of the screen. That's where I'm -- again, there's a lot of money in your plans for things like in East Anglia for [indiscernible] about cutting those up, and those all seem to be shifting to the right. So I just wonder to what extent that's wishful thinking, that the CapEx program will end up around about the same number as you thought it was going to be on -- for the 8-year period?

I think if you look at that chart I showed where it's dipped and then it goes back up again -- because we've actually got today, would you believe it, 101 gigawatts of connection agreements out to 2026. We've never had that in our history actually. Question is how much of that is going to come forward. I think we need to be careful about knee jerking on 6 months' information. As I said things can change very quickly, and I hope they do actually. I hope EMR really does put an emphasis into the generation market, back to Peter's question earlier. On the gas stuff, we actually had a number of these things that weren't in our baseline plans actually, although we did apply for them, you're quite right. So our gas allowance, as I said, feel about right to us at the moment, they do. And there were some things that might be in some things that might not be an awful lot of our CapEx, is to do with compressor replacement and reinforcements around there. It's still -- it's just too early to tell. I mean, your points are well made. I don't have a huge defense. Are you right, are we right, I don't know. We need to handle this as we go forward. The important thing is this is what RIIO was designed to do though actually, to flex to make sure that customers aren't paying for things they don't need and our revenues will flex, when all of a sudden, we're investing an awful lot more in 2015 that was originally forecast, et cetera. But our job for investors is just to keep giving you the best information we got today, I think, without any question.

Okay. [indiscernible].

Yes, on SAP, yes.

I mean, SAP is, as we said – tried to say, is incredibly complex. This is not just a financial system, SAP, that's been implemented. It goes beyond there, it goes into things like store management systems and front office systems, how we do accounting for revenue versus CapEx and OpEx and so forth. So it's a hugely complex system, which is one of the challenges. So when you had the knock-on impact of the storm and the issues around the payroll, a lot of work has had to be done about remediating, actually getting data back and corrected. So a lot of the costs actually associated, particularly on the remediation side, is unfortunately very expensive consultants who are coming in to actually do work for us because effectively, everybody was out, actually, on the storm duty at the time last year. So that's one of our challenges, which has been to get them out and get internal resource available to do that work, and that's a part of the process, which has continued to -- ongoing. As we say, it's slightly exacerbated by LIPA because at the time we did -- in May, when we actually announced results, we weren't expecting LIPA to take over the SAP -- or PSE&G to take over the LIPA -- our version of SAP for LIPA. They've actually elected to do that, so it shows its base system is good. It's just unfortunately not in the situation yet where we are -- where we actually got it stable and operating 100%. But that's delayed of the final fixes because then, you get into year end and SOX reporting and so forth. So that's all been part of the challenge we've been trying to make -- to deal with.

We've just got to see this thing through and get it finished. Last question, Ed? Edmund Reid - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Two questions. One of which is exceedingly boring, so I apologize in advance. You changed your tax guidance to 26% to 27%, I believe. What's driving that, and would you expect it to continue into next year? And then my second question is sort of re-asking my second question from last time, which is the lower CapEx and when it feeds in to your earnings numbers. So from memory, I think there's a 2-year lag. So it would feed into the '15, '16 revenue numbers, but I was just wondering if you can go through that in a bit more detail?

On the tax guidance, the principal driver is the mix of profits, U.K., U.S. U.K. tax rate has continued to reduce obviously. That's a benefit slightly this year, although we were aware of that at the time when we did the May. But most of it really relates to purely just mix of profits, U.K. versus U.S.

Yes. And on your other question, I'm going to be slightly cheeky, Ed, if I may. You're right about the 2-year lag. So we announced just a [ph] fixed -- we'll pay back. And one of the things that Andrew alluded to, we talked about in the seminar, we can't do it at the half year, it doesn't make any sense at all. But at the full year, we will do a reconciliation in line with the seminar in terms of these IOUs. And how much -- back to Lakis' question, how much have we actually saved this -- that our savings that we'll benefit from and customers will benefit from versus delays, and how much is therefore going to go back to customers in 2 years' time. So we'll true all those things up with our full year results. If you'd like to go through the seminar again, my chief remark is, I know Andy Agg is here. He carries those charts with him at all times. He'll be delighted to run you through them again after this, I'm sure. Thank you. Thanks for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.