So thank you all for coming in this morning. And for those of you on our webcast, thank you for listening to us. If everything goes to plan, it will be our last results presentation as Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. Today is an important step in the evolution of Reed Elsevier. 2014 was another good year with 3% underlying revenue growth and 10% constant currency earnings per share growth. And we're proposing to share dividends by 6% in PLC, 16% in NV with the difference in growth rates of course reflecting the spot exchange rates at the relevant time. We also acquired businesses for a total of almost £400 million and bought back shares worth £600 million. With Nick Luff in position as CFO, last year we embarked on an exercise to simplify our corporate structure. This has resulted in a proposal to simply the structure, clarify the economic interest of shareholders and increase the transparency of the share price of the two parent companies and importantly also of their separate ADR listings in New York. This process along with the proposed name change will not be complete until approved by shareholders at our AGMs in April and subsequently implemented. We believe it to be in the interest of all the shareholders of both parent companies to make Reed Elsevier into a more understandable group with greater transparency and with a more modern-sounding name. Again, this is evolutionary and designed to build on our history while reflecting the reality of what the company is today. Erik will now take you through our continuing strategy and the rationale for the changes we're proposing. Then Nick, who I should also welcome to his first results presentation, will present the financial results and timetable for approval and implementation of our proposed changes. To his great credit, Nick has settled in so well that it feels as if he's already been with us for a very long time. Eric will then sum up before we take your questions. Erik.

Well thank you, Anthony. Good morning, everybody and thank you for coming and for taking the time to be here today. As you've seen from our press release this morning, our positive financial performance continued throughout 2014 with underlying revenue and profit growth across all four business areas and further improvement in profitability. We also made further strategic and operational progress as we continue to transform our business primarily through organic development, building out our global platforms and adding broader datasets and more sophisticated analytics for our electronic decision tools. We're now extending our efforts to modernize and simplify the company to our corporate structure, our share listings and corporate entity names. We're announcing a set of changes that represent a significant simplification of our corporate structure and an increasing transparency without impacting the economic interest of our shareholders. In terms of our financial performance, we maintained good momentum throughout 2014 across our four key financial metrics, underlying revenue growth excluding exhibition cycling effects was again 3%, underlying operating profit growth was 5%, earnings per share at constant currencies grew 10% and our return on invested capital increased by 0.7 percentage points to 12.8%. All four business areas again delivered underlying revenue growth with almost half our revenues coming from business areas that are growing mid-single digits or above. And all four business areas again delivered underlying operating profit growth with, as you can see from this chart, over half of our operating profits coming from business areas that are growing their profits in the mid-single digits or above. Let`s look at the full year results for each business area. Our STM business grew 2% with several key business trends positive for the year. Primary research subscription revenue growth was around 0.5 percentage point higher than prior year and we…

Thank you, Erik. Morning, everyone. Let me start by repeating the financial highlights. Revenue momentum was sustained with underlying growth of 3%, excluding exhibition cycling. Coupled with tight cost control, that translates to 5% growth in underlying operating profit. Lower interest costs took the growth rate up to 7% at the profit before tax level. Constant currency growth in earnings per share is ahead of that at 10%, reflecting the impact of the share buyback program. Cash conversion remains strong at 96% and return on invested capital improved further to 12.8%. Leverage remains within the range we have seen in recent years at 2.3x EBITDA including pensions and leases. The equalized dividends are up 6% and 16%, an average of 11% growth, slightly ahead of constant-currency EPS growth and on top of the dividend we also completed £600 million of share buybacks last year. Looking at the income statement, the 3% underlying revenue growth is then impacted by M&A and currency movements. Disposals, net of acquisitions and cycling, reduced revenues by 2%. The relative strength of the pound in 2014 reduced sterling reported revenues by 5%. Adjusted operated profit reported in sterling was pretty much unchanged at £1.7 billion with underlying growth of 5% offset by current movements. The margin increased to just over 30%. Refinancing of historic bond issues and favorable short-term rates continued to bring down our debt costs, reducing the interest charge by £30 million. The tax rate on adjusted profit remained at 23.5% resulting in adjusted net profit of just over £1.2 billion. The decline in reported profit is simply due to there being some one-off deterred tax credits in 2013 which weren't repeated in 2014. This is the last time you'll have to worry about having two adjusted EPS figures; the simplification we're proposing will…

So just to summarize what we've covered this morning. In 2014 our positive financial performance continued throughout the year and we made further strategic and operational progress. We also extended our efforts to modernize and simplify the company to our corporate structure, our share listings and our corporate entity names. Going forward, business trends in the early part of 2015 remain consistent with 2014 trends across our business and we're confident that by continuing to execute on our strategy we will deliver another year of underlying revenue, profit and earnings growth in 2015. And with that I think we're ready to go to questions. Let's see, so why don't we start over here this time at the front.

It's Matthew Walker from Nomura. A few questions please. The first one is the trends in the science subscriptions are a little bit better and the trends in the science books modestly better. Can you explain maybe why we didn't see a slightly better overall growth rate in STM? In legal, can you tell us how much of legal is what you would call legal solutions? And why maybe that percentage is not slightly higher, why you're not investing more in what you call legal solutions rather than the online research piece which seems to have only modest growth? And lastly on working capital, can you explain the shift in working capital in this year, 2014 and say what you think working capital will be like in 2015, i.e. positive or negative?

Well, I'm going to end up giving the third question to Nick over there on working capital, but let me answer the first two before that. Yes, if you look at our different divisions, given that we do only give growth rates in full percent because we think that the broad issue is to look at our business with overall growth trends over time. You can look at some of them and say, how come certain things are happening but I don't see it coming through in the overall growth rate. The way we look at STM, of course, is that there are few big portions of that pie and then there are several small slivers and the big portions of our STM business primarily would be the primary research. The primary research subscription business is about half or a little bit over half of that business. And the fundamental trends in that business I think are very important for what happened in the year as well as indicated in the future. And if you look there at the fact that we saw incoming volumes growing up at double digits, we saw usage up at double digits and we saw the underlying subscription base, that's the revenue of subscription base growing and growing at half a point higher rate than it did the year before, that we think is a very meaningful indicator. As you also pointed out, we have print books and print books are just below 15% of all of STM and print book declines have continued for the last few years but gradually have started to moderate. And in the year you saw a moderation in the print book declines during the full year. That moderation in decline was significantly better in the first half than it…

So you saw in the cash flow the £44 million outflow for working capital and other items. In the context of our overall working capital position, £1.5 billion of receivables and £2.6 billion of payables, as a healthy net negative position £44 million is, I would regard, I would take that as neutral. There are no particular trends in working capital, I think we expect to maintain that strong negative position. It will no doubt move around depending on the exact timing of inflows, particularly at the yearend, but no particular trends.

Thank you, it's Paddy from Goldman Sachs. I've got a couple of questions. Firstly, on the corporate structure, if I remember rightly, one of the original reasons for the shareholding of the PLC and NV was a tax structure. How are you keeping the tax neutral when you're simplifying the structure? And can you give us guidance on the tax rate for next year is my first question. The second question is on events. Can you elaborate on your comments on China on different growth rates and talk a little bit about the competitive landscape of events in China please.

Okay, I'm going to address the second one first, your competitive landscape and then I'll do an introduction on the corporate structure and handover the specific tax thing to Nick at the end. On events, you talked just specifically about China. What we're seeing in China is really a reflection of what's going on in the general economy in China which is that, as you say, see Xi Jinping taking over and establishing his new policies and putting them into place, that's having a different result in some sectors and segments and locations from others and because we operate in several different industry segments we see that some of those are then being supported by some of the policies in the near term and some of them are seeing that certain policies that relate to certain industries are seeing a slowdown in the growth rate. That's what we're seeing in general in China which means that overall there has been a slight reduction but it differs by segment. That would be a different from what we see going on in Europe broadly, for example, where we have a large enough portfolio, we tend to move a bit with the overall economy or some other countries. But in China it's sort of sector specific, it's still growing well but you can see the different growth rates coming through. And when you talk about specifically the competitive situation, we don't really think of ourselves as competing by countries, we see ourselves as competing by industry segments, by locations and show-by-show basis and we have not specifically seen any, what I consider, changes to the competitive dynamics in China that are material to us. I know that there are other players that sometimes talk about a big shift in their existing sub-segments but…

Yes, so the jurisdictions that matter to us in this context are primarily to the UK, the Netherlands and the U.S. and, as Erik said, the regulations in those countries are always evolving, the UK CFC rules are evolving, the Dutch participation exemption is changing. So in that context with those changes we have been able to find a route through which we can do this restructuring that doesn't have a significant impact on the overall tax position of the Group. So with underlying trends being broadly the same as well, the 23.5% that we've been consistently at is a good number for now, clearly that could change but the restructuring itself shouldn't have any impact on that.

It's Jonathan Helliwell at Panmure. Just a couple of things. First, could you just explain why the events cycling increases to 3% to 4% factor next year? Second, just to come back on this legal growth rate stubbornly stuck at about 1%, I don't know if you saw but there was an FT article this morning saying that turnover in law firms in the UK was 8% growth in 2013, 6% expected for 2014, it was saying the market was picking up a bit. So why do you think there's this big disconnect between your 1% and that sort of a number? Is it because the U.S. market is different? Is it a market share issue? Is it to do with the structural growth for research type products?

Yes, okay. Let me see here. So events, events cycling is an interesting mechanical thing, that we have our ongoing like-for-like shows that have the like-for-like organic growth, that's the 7% that you saw this year. What you have is the shows cycling in in one year, so the net cycling is a portfolio of shows, it's a mixture of shows that cycle in and out in the even years and they are in different geographies and in different segments growing at different rates. Then in the odd years you have a completely different set of shows cycling in and a different mix and a different set of shows cycling out. So it's not just that one show comes in and out, it's lots of different shows in different categories that cycle in and out. And some of those grow more or less over the two year period so therefore the cycling in and cycling out is not necessarily just and in and out. If we only had one cycling show, it would be the same, so to speak, but because there are portfolio shows and in different currencies and in different markets they are slightly different. And also, not to make this too complicated, there also are some triennial shows in there. So that's why we have moved to a point of saying that we will show you the exact overall revenues and profits for exhibitions, we will tell you exactly what is like-for-like underlying growth excluding portfolio changes, excluding cycling, so you get a sense of the real comparable growth rate. We will then tell you separately the effects of portfolio changes, the effects of cycling, so in any one given year we'll tell you in advance what we expect it to be, we'll tell you looking back…

Andrea Beneventi from Kepler Cheuvreux. Three questions if I may. The first on STM, American federal budgets, well, the shortfall is narrowing and generally public budgets appear to be in better shape. You mentioned an unchanged customer environment in STM, so could you please develop a little bit on this gap. Secondly, maybe on the sources of increase in profitability in legal for 2015 since revenue growth is still subdued. And finally, on that side, you have $1.8 billion of debt maturing by 2017, how much room for savings on interest costs do you see from this please?

Okay, so I think I'll give the last question there to Nick in the end. Let me start here, I'm not sure I fully understand your second question but let me start with the first. The STM, you're saying that some of the budget environments for research seem like they might be improving right? Yes.

Well, generally the federal funding shortfall is narrowing and the budgets--

Yes, the way we look at it is that the general environment that we look at globally we think is fairly similar to what it was a year ago and if you look at the work we've done so far in renewals and so on its continuing along the trends we saw last year which is broadly similar and, again, we think that the indicators, the key indicators in the business are in positive, heading in a positive sense. But, you also have to remember that the bulk of that business is driven by multiyear contracts that are negotiated ahead of time and then come through slowly and the come across the world, North America is basically a third of the business, Europe a third, the rest of the world a third, broadly speaking. And therefore, you have the geographic spread as well as you have the sequencing, the timeline of multiyear contracts coming through which means that any one change in any one geography will come through our revenue picture very slowly and gradually over time. And usually you see that when things slow down and you see that when things pick up. But having said that, as you could see, we did see some strengthening of the underlying fundamentals of that business over the last 12 months and, I don't know exactly what those indicators will look like going forward but that's what we have seen up until today, so it wouldn't be inconsistent with your views. So let me just sure though on the second question on legal that I, can you just rephrase your question please, repeat your question?

Yes, if you could help us with some details on the sources of the further cost savings you see in 2015. You give us a detailed breakdown of the sources of cost savings in 2014 in legal.

Yes, the way we think of legal, if you combine it to the question before about revenue growth, that we believe that this industry in the long run will pick up its revenue growth trajectory, we believe it will in the long term. In the short term we're not focused on predicting that, we're focused on running our business as well as we can in the environment that we're in today and that means rolling out new platform releases, rolling out new products, improving the decision-making tool capability on the platform and streamlining, combining and reducing the cost of our business operations, our back office systems and our structures. As you know, we have over the last few years built up a whole new infrastructure in parallel with the old one and we're gradually in the process of turning off some of the old systems now and we've turned off probably a couple of dozen small systems now. We will continue to turn more systems off so as we do that costs come out, as well we're also in the process of dismantling some of the double organizational setups that we had for a period of time, so we will continue to do that over the next few years and it will take us a few more years to do that. And some of those steps will be taken in a smooth fashion and some will come in small steps and that's why it's not necessarily a straight line and it gets a little lumpier and that's why you could see the margin improvement this year was higher than we've seen in the last few years. The organic margin improvement we've seen is probably more like 50 or 70 basis points a year the last few years and this year we were well above that, that's why I'm saying you're likely to see a slightly smaller organic margin improvement in the upcoming year. There are also some portfolio changes and joint venture spinoffs that create the absolute margin increase that you saw, that we separate out in our press release.

So you're absolutely right, there is scope for the effective interest rate to come down. As I said in the presentation, though, it won't come down as much in 2015 where we don't have many maturities actually. But if you look over the next three or four years we have got further maturities which in the current, if interest rates stay where they are, you'll have the opportunity to get some savings. Having said that of course, make your assumption on floating rates, about half the portfolio is at floating interest rates and if you believe forward curves, the floating rates are going to go up a bit which you would expect to offset that at least to some extent.

It's Sami at Exane BNP Paribas. Two questions please. For the last five years you've been working on improving the portfolio, reshaping it. You've been working on organic development, improving the organic trend and yet organic growth has remained at 3% for the last four years and is loosely guided to be 3% in 2015. My question is when are we going to see the improvement in topline growth? Or put it another way, what parts of the business have been slowing down offsetting the work you've been doing on reshaping and investing in organic performance? And secondly, historically you were talking about cost growth to be in-line with revenue growth - to be below revenue growth. Last year we heard you say cost growth to be in-line with revenue growth for Elsevier and Risk. Is that still your view going forward i.e. that costs and revenue should grow equally at both Elsevier and Risk. Thank you, Erik.

When you look at the portfolio reshaping and the organic transformation of our business, what we're doing to this business, as you might have seen, the profile from print to electronic, the profile from reference to decision tools and so on, is clearly creating over time a business profile that inherently will have more predictable revenues and a higher growth profile, as well as increasing returns on invested capital. And that will happen naturally if we continue to pursue this over a few years, this will naturally happen and our overall organic revenue growth rate will improve over time, that's almost inevitable with the kind of structural changes we're making and the way we're driving the business and the print format declines reduce. So when exactly that will happen will depend to some extent on what we're doing to the company strategically and how we're reshaping it, but in any one specific year the actual revenue growth will depend on the markets that we operate in in our geographic footprint in that year And on a short-term basis what's different this year from last year? Yes, our portfolio and our profile is a little different, but the environment can change more in any one year or can influence us more. Therefore we're focused on continuing that transformation and we will see increased growth rates over time. When exactly that will come? That depends more on our markets and the macroeconomic environment than what we do. If you said, you say that some of these areas are improving and you can see the profile improving but you still say we're stuck at 3%, what's declining? Well, actually there aren't that many areas, as a matter of fact there aren't any big areas and you can see that by our divisional numbers,…

Yes, it's Nick Dempsey from Barclays. I've got two more questions please. Maybe just to follow-up on Sami's question, you've talked in the last few years quite a lot about 3%, 5%, 7% as organic revenue growth, operating profit and pre-tax. You achieved that last year on the back of quite a big jump in legal margins which it's probably unrealistic to ever think that will recur again. So should we not be thinking more like 3%, 4%, 6% when we're going forwards rather than 3%, 5%, 7%? And my next question, just to follow-up on Jonathan's question on legal. I understand that you're saying what you're saying about the underlying markets, don't you also see a change in how law firms look at their cost base, that they're becoming much more aggressive on their costs and therefore the old link between the underlying market and your revenues might be breaking down?

Well if you look at, your first question here, the 3%, 5%, 7% which is sort of the in cycling out years that's been our model and then in cycling in years if you really looked at is slightly higher than that, if you see the profit and earnings growth has been slightly higher, in fact the cycle in at sort of 4%, 6%, 8% or something, this year 10%. And the reason for that is that, the reason it looks a little funny this year is actually that some of the accounting that we do in legal for the spinoffs and so on, when we spin something out the revenues disappear but some of the profits stay in, so there's a bit of joint venture and disposal accounting, we have to follow the rules. So if you really looked at it more like-for-like it is probably, this year probably looked more like 4%, 6%, 8% and then an extra couple of percent for interest to get to 10%. So I think that in the cycling out years it might have been 3%, 5%, 7%, in the cycling in years more like 4%, 6%, 8%, if you truly tried to normalize for accounting and you add a couple of percent for interest, that's really what you've seen. So the idea that when you say shouldn't it be more like 3%, 4%, I think, is it possible any one year at some point could look slightly different from these models? Absolutely it can, you can't be absolutely focused on exactly a certain set of numbers in any one year, as you can see this year it was 10% for different reasons. So, it can be better and it can marginally worse. But I think the fundamental principle that until we start…

It's Alex DeGroote at Peel Hunt. Just on Slide 31, uses of cash priorities. I just wondered if we could have a few comments on why the buyback is still such a big priority. Or maybe the quantification of why the slight trim to the buyback to £500 million from £600 million, the point being that rating is now 20 times. We're hearing again and again here through the Q&A that the market is getting slightly concerned over topline growth, so why the buyback is such a priority for the company now given what we've seen in the share price and with such modest topline growth?

Well the way I look at it is, you can look at it strategically and you can look at the specific number and how we chose the number relative to last year's cash flows and so on. I'll leave the second piece to Nick to talk through the numbers. But philosophically, we think of the priority order for cash the way I put it on my slide there which says the strategic priority is first to drive the organic transformation of the company; second, then to do the small plug-in add-ons that we can really see we're the natural owner and we can do good returns to support the organic growth strategy. And then we say we do want to make sure that we have a predictable growing dividend and that's relatively straightforward for us to do and we think that roughly this leverage range is good. And then we have to be pragmatic about how it is that we turn the value that is compounding in the business inevitably every year, even if the growth rate has been stable for a few years and it will pick up later in the future. We say while that is happening, regardless of the exact growth rate, we're compounding value in the company at a certain growth rate every year, how do we make sure that that goes to shareholders in a pragmatic way given your structure and that's what comes out. And the philosophy and the strategy around it is exactly the same as a year ago, is exactly the same as two years ago. The exact numbers have changed marginally, temporarily right now and they might change again slightly, but the exact number is not the issue, the philosophy is the one I think about. Nick can explain how it is we arrived at this specific number this year.

So if you look at what happened in 2014 obviously our M&A spend went up compared to 2013, our disposal proceeds came down. We don't know in advance, of course, what the M&A spend is going to be for a year, so you do get a lag effect. So if you take the buybacks as a pragmatic way of balancing the overall financial management of the balance sheet it has to reflect the previous year's M&A activity and not necessarily what you're expecting this year. And if you just look at the cash flows for 2014, you saw net borrowings are up £500 million, some of that's currency but even if you strip the currency out that's a £400 million increase in net borrowing, so we're just reflecting the fact that with a heavier year for M&A in terms of spend but less for disposals in 2014, just adjusting that to make the overall model work and it's using the buyback as a pragmatic way of managing that overall balance sheet position.

It's Ian Whittaker from Liberum. Three questions. First of all, if I could just follow-up from a question of Matthew's, so just on Elsevier. Obviously 2% can range anywhere from 1.5% to 2.4% so can you give us a little bit more detail as to what exactly the figure was and also as well for the nine months? The second thing is a follow-up really from Nick's, is in terms of when you expect your legal topline growth to come back. Will it be more linked in with the growth of legal revenues or legal employment numbers? Because there is a sort of argument that seems to be brewing in the States that essentially law firms are looking to automate a lot more of their tasks, therefore requiring fewer lawyers. And the third thing is just in terms of your organic revenue growth moving forward, so it's a bit of longer term question and so on. But when you look on a five-year view do you see any major new areas of investment that you will have to go into given the developments within your businesses?

Now, let me do this. You say, on Elsevier, there is a reason that we only express growth rates in all our divisions in full percentages right, because we believe that the fundamental long-term trends in these businesses is what's important and what we're doing overall. The investment case, the kind of company we're, is not related to a decimal point in subdivision in any one year. So therefore we haven't tried to go into sub-decimal points and things like that in different divisions and I'm not going to start now. We did cover that there are lots of different small pieces in Elsevier, as in all different divisions there are different small things, but we do try to communicate and express the large fundamental blocks and their drivers and their growth rate trends every year. I think we're going to stick with that philosophy. The second thing you said, legal topline revenue growth for people serving the market. Again, we do not want to engage in market forecasting, we engage in servicing the market and we're going to do that regardless of whether the market grows very little or accelerates. We know what we're going to do in the near term, we're going to focus on improving migrating to more sophisticated decision tools, adding more value to the clients and then over time we will benefit from the market as well in our core. You asked the question is the fundamental long term topline growth driven more by legal market revenue or legal market employment? I would say in the near term it's probably driven by both, in the long term I would add a third and that is how much it is that we migrate our sophisticated tools so that they add more value so that perhaps that…

It's Giasone Salati from Redburn. Two questions please. One is on CapEx, I think you mentioned a small increase in STM CapEx in 2015, could you give us a broader comment on CapEx overall, still 5% of revenues going forward. And attached to that, is there any depreciation impact on a legal margin improvement? Is there any impact from depreciation falling off from assets which, as you said, have been written off as a result of restructuring. Second question or third really. Am I reading your comments on geographies and impact on organic revenue growth right if I conclude that we're looking at an acceleration to 4% organic revenue growth in the event that there is a European recovery?

Well let me answer, yes, I'll answer all the three of these. I might hand over to Nick and cover a little bit on the CapEx, so I'll start from the bottom up here. The European economic recovery and predicting future growth rates, we're not trying to be a leading indicating or a predictor of macroeconomic activity or the impacts of different political or economic moves on any one of our customer segments. We're a very predictable business, we're not particularly cyclical, we will vary a bit within the near term but for us to try and predict it I think would not be a good use of our time. So we spend our time trying to understand how it is that we can add value to our customers in the near term and do everything we can to create value for them so that we can create revenue growth for us. And if at any given point in time we see a pickup in one area, we don't know what's happening to the others. So we're not giving you any guidance or prediction on revenue growth for the future.

Sorry, just as a follow-up straight on this one. If there is a European recovery, do you agree that the organic revenue growth could increase from 3% to 4% regardless of your conviction on that?

Well I think that depends on lots of other things that happen at the time in our different segments in our other geographies, Europe is only 20% of our revenues. So if you look at it that way it depends more on the other 80% than it depends on the 20%, if you count Continental Europe is 21% as you can see on our charts. So you talked about legal depreciation, of course, yes, it is going up, every single year it's a bit up and down and so on, but it is inevitably going up over a period of time as we introduce and bring online the new platforms and the new releases. So as we've spent more on capital the last few years that means that on an ongoing basis depreciation is moving up. Now in any one year there are step functions and some old systems taken off at the same time and things are put up, so in any one year you might see a slight jumpiness or bumpiness in this one. But over time depreciation is coming up but were confident that even with a relatively flat market environment we can continue to drive our cost structure such that margins will be at least even every single year that we can squeeze out a little bit of a margin improvement effectively every year, including that effect. And then you said on CapEx, on STM, I'll let Nick talk about it more broadly, but just in STM CapEx actually fluctuates a little bit year on year in STM historically, it goes up and down a little bit, it has done that for well over a decade depending on which projects we're working on or not working. This past year, 2014, the CapEx in STM was a little lower than the year before so it's probably that 2014 was a little bit unusually low in STM and we're coming back up to normal going forward in STM, is probably what the guidance is supposed to say, rather than any type of future step up or increase, it's more a normalization again for averages. Let me hand over to Nick.

So if you look in the back of the pack, slides 47 and 48 give you a bit more detail on the CapEx and the depreciation. As Erik said on CapEx, it's more that STM was a little low in 2014 at 3% of revenue having been 4% and we'd expect that to pick up again. And on the depreciation, whilst the legal depreciation came down in pounds million, that was largely currency so as a percentage of revenue it stayed the same, 7%, so it didn't particularly impact the margins in 2014.

It's Tom here from Citigroup. Just one question, actually maybe two, on science. The main question is about consolidation, the merger between or proposed merger between Springer and Macmillan. Does that make a big difference to you, either at a broad competitive level or within any of the particular verticals that you're particularly exposed to? And then the second question, forgive me if you've already commented on this in the past, but is there an outstanding exposure to Swets and the sort administration process there? And I'm just wondering whether there's any link with the working capital move related that.

No, the way we look at the merger that you're talking about, we don't look at that as having any impact on us at all, it's a broad-based player combining with a high quality niche player and we believe that it's probably a logical move for them but we don't see it as having any impact on us, the way we compete in that marketplace. The second questions, Swets, it's negligible, there is no material impact that you can notice anywhere or we can notice. It exists but it's very small.

And the customers who were dealing with us through Swets we've successfully talked to them about dealing with us direct so it's not been a problem.

Sorry, just a follow-up question, I'm probably just being stupid here, but just coming back to something you said, if 50% of your revenue is in North America, 20% are in Europe ex the UK, how is it that essentially the currency impact for the PLC is very marginal for 2015? Has it got to do with the extra interest costs?

It's actually the hedging slows it all down. So you're right, fundamentally a strong dollar relative to the euro and the pound will be good for the reported results back in sterling and euros. But because we hedge those revenues, particularly in STM to some extent back into euros and sterling, the euro weakness. If you look at it from a pound point of view and you saw from the charts and the euro's 10% down, so whatever is hedged into euros is working against us, whatever's working in dollars is going for us but at the moment they're broadly netting out. There is fundamentally though some help there that will come through as the hedging unwinds.

Okay, so more probably of a 2016 effect.

Well we hedge over a three-year period so it will come through over time.

I think it's important here to look and say, all the effects you're looking at will come through it's just in certain cases it's slightly delayed as we do phased out hedging, we don't take a market position it's just a slightly sort of rolling in slowly. Let's go over here.

It's Steve Liechti from Investec. Just, you've talked exhaustively about probably all of the divisions really except risk and business and you've merged the two businesses in that vertical and I'm feeling slightly bereft of detail here. Could you may be help me and give me a split between the old RBI and risk? Or even go down these different buckets, the four buckets that you've identified and give me some sort of scoping in terms of the relative growth rate against the actual one big number that you've given in terms of like-for-like growth. Just help me out a bit.

Yes, it's actually very straightforward, our intent is not to reduce the amount of disclosure and if we look at, as you can see overall risk and business information is a major part of the business and it continues to drive a large part of the value creation and a large part of the adjacency opportunities we talk about. The overall organic revenue growth was 6% for the full year, same as we had earlier in the year. If you look at it by the two old risk solutions versus business information, for the full year risk solutions was at 7% and business information at 5% ending up at 6% combined. If you look at it the way we look at it more nowadays it's more by the different segments, you'd say that our main, sort of high quality data services inside RBI are looking a lot more like the risk business and the growth rates are also more in the high-single-digits. So if you look at what is inside that, well, you say risk is growing 7% and you see that there are a couple of slower segments in there, smaller ones related to some government and [inaudible] things that are slightly smaller, but most of them are growing at about that level. So if you think about the risk business, as most segments in risk growing about 7%, sometimes a little more, sometimes maybe a little behind in some sub-segments. And then you think of the data services business, the major data services in RBI, very similar to that, similar growth rate profiles on average. Then you still have a bit in RBI, the old RBI, where you have some of these major brands that operate, they're partly print and partly electronic and partly data services, they're growing little bit less, they're growing the low-to-mid-single-digits. And then we have a little bit of a left over on stable print assets at the bottom so-to-speak. And that's really the way to think about it, is by asset type more than it is by what it used to be. But those are the growth numbers for how it used to be 7% and 5% made out to 6% and in the 5% there are lots of 7%, 8%, 9%, but there's also a bit of low-single-digits in there that's still in the portfolio.

Good okay. Well, thank you for joining us today and I'll look forward to seeing you again soon.