Well, good morning everybody. 3i Infrastructure is unique in the listed infrastructure sector, and that brief video sets out some of the characteristics of our company and its portfolio. We've built a diverse portfolio of businesses that are aligned with long-term megatrends, which Bernardo will talk about later. I'm pleased to report that we achieved another year of outperformance. The company generated a total return of 11.4% on opening NAV for the year, ahead of our target return of 8%-10% per annum, with the NAV per share increasing in the year to GBP 3.623. Our companies, supported by the engaged asset management approach of 3i, our investment manager, are generating attractive and accretive growth investment opportunities. Over GBP 400 million of growth CapEx was reinvested in the portfolio in this year alone. This was mostly funded by recycling the strong earnings generated by our portfolio companies. We have delivered a dividend target of GBP 0.119 per share, which is fully covered by income. We are setting a higher target for FY25 of GBP 0.1265 per share, a 6.3% increase. As I said earlier, we have a unique and differentiated proposition in the listed infrastructure market, and we're confident that our company and its portfolio is well-positioned for further growth. Thank you, and now over to Bernardo. Thank you, Richard. We have talked before about our investment strategy that continues to deliver superior sustainable returns. 3i Infrastructure is invested in a portfolio of 12 companies operating across a diverse range of sectors and markets, in each case looking to meet our three key investment criteria: strong market positions, providing essential services within their own value chains, themselves supported by underlying megatrends, and all wrapped in active and engaged asset management. Our strategy looks to skew our returns to the upside whilst protecting the downside. This has been consistently delivered over the years and across the portfolio. Most of our investments have delivered returns well above target at acquisition, as you can see in this slide. Against the background of changing macroeconomic conditions, we strongly believe our core plus focus continues to provide an attractive risk-return proposition to shareholders, and a clearly differentiated strategy within the public infrastructure market. In fact, since inception, our approach has delivered an asset IRR of 18%. This slide shows the three stepping stones that contribute to that performance. Firstly, at acquisition, we look to pricing a base case that captures a balanced view on growth assumptions and downside protection. This base case returns are in line with the weighted average discount rate that you see in our valuations. We look to find downside protection from a starting platform of contracted revenues, or a hard-to-replicate asset base, or any other barrier to entry, providing good visibility of cash flows even under a stress case. Building up from this solid base, we then apply our engaged asset management model to generate upside to our businesses. As shown in the second bar, we unlock and drive growth beyond the acquisition plan by ensuring the company has well-sized CapEx facilities and the discipline to pre-contract revenues at accretive returns. In short, compounding growth through self-funded investment. The third bar shows the upside we explore from early on, and that is how to position our businesses for successful exits into the larger and more competitive private infrastructure market, generating an additional return premium. We often invest in small and medium-sized businesses, typically not previously owned by infrastructure investors, but rather acquired from private equity funds or corporate spin-offs, where we spot undervalued infrastructure characteristics and growth potential. A good example of that was our investment in Attero that we exited in the period. Acquired from a private equity owner on the back of a failed auction, we enhanced its infrastructure traits by extending the contracted revenue base, refinancing it with long-dated investment-grade infrastructure debt, and then we reinvested part of the operating cash flows in growth projects around plastic recycling, biogas, and carbon capture. As a result, we did not just enhance Attero's infrastructure and ESG credentials, but we also doubled its EBITDA and the equity value. That made Attero highly attractive to large-cap private infrastructure funds, in this case one managed by Ardian. The investment generated a total return of 22% per annum through our ownership, from an initial investment base case of around 12%. We see this trend as a trend likely to continue. Private infrastructure is now a well-established asset class and a permanent feature in most sovereign wealth and pension funds portfolios. Allocations to this space are expected to grow strongly over coming years, and those growing allocations have over time coalesced fewer more established managers. That generated an increased number of multi-billion large-cap funds, many of them over 10 billion in size. This creates a viable and attractive exit route for our portfolio companies as they mature and grow in size. I spoke about the importance of earnings growth, particularly in a context where shareholders demand higher returns, and there is no growth without demand. Looking ahead, we continue to see our portfolio exposed to a well-diversified set of supportive megatrends and investment themes, ranging from energy transition to shared resources and digitalization, among others. But more than providing base demand, we see those trends often offering opportunities for our companies to evolve and expand their business models in ways we did not initially price in. Scott will elaborate on that. Revenue growth has been a consistent feature across the portfolio, as we show in this slide. The revenue growth leads to growth in earnings, which drives our value creation. Our infrastructure businesses are dynamic, open-ended platforms, unconstrained by time-limited contracts or concessions. Portfolio growth is also generated from a diverse sector exposure and from a range of different investment theses, reducing the risk of single-point exposure to a particular asset class and changes in its macrodynamics. This year was no exception, and we saw portfolio consolidated EBITDA growing by 8%, or 16% when excluding energy companies that were constrained by their commodity prices returning to normalized levels. Our strategy requires active engagement with our portfolio companies. Over time, we found that positioning companies for growth and successful exits is better done by being in a position of control. Today, we have majority control in 10 out of our 12 company boards. For the other two, we have joint control alongside our operating partners. This enables us, for instance, to put in place and evolve top-quality management teams, who often invest their own money alongside 3i Infrastructure, linking their personal economic outcomes to our achieved returns. In fact, all our portfolio companies have aligned long-term management incentive structures in place. Our deal teams were also active in assisting our portfolio companies in refinancing and replenishing their CapEx facilities, 5 in total this year, enabling over GBP 400 million of CapEx investment. We were also busy identifying and executing on 4 value-creative bolt-on investments. Finally, our ESG team continued to work alongside our portfolio companies to ensure they become best-in-class during our ownership period. We believe that companies with a strong ESG profile will deliver more value. It makes them better positioned to win new contracts, to attract more financing. In fact, we see that ESG is now a gating item for most lenders, and to command higher valuations upon exit, Attero being again the case in point. This year, 3i Group signed up to the Science Based Targets initiative, requiring 100% of the portfolio companies to have science-based emission reduction targets over time. In FY24, we made a good start in that direction, with Joulz and Ionisos having set their targets to reduce emissions in line with SBTi. In short, our core-plus focused strategy continues to add to our top quartile track record. I will now hand over to Scott to talk about performance and outlook. Thank you. Thanks, Bernardo, and good morning, everyone. As many of you will be aware, we have delivered top quartile returns benchmarked across public and private infrastructure funds since 3i Infrastructure was first listed in 2007. This year has seen a continuation of that story. As you can see from the chart on the screen, over the last 12 months, very few infrastructure investment companies actually met their target returns. 3i Infrastructure was a clear outlier in that regard, and you will note that the target return itself is at the top end of the market range. 2024 was the 10th consecutive year in which 3i Infrastructure has met or exceeded its target return. As Bernardo has described, we have developed a proven and replicable process, which has allowed us to embed consistency within our approach to value creation. We buy well, we manage actively, and then we exit at the right moment in time. In addition to our consistent method, there is also a fundamental consistency that comes from our time together as a team. The infrastructure partners at 3i Infrastructure have an average tenure of over 10 years. Consistency across people and process are core ingredients of our success. As we have explained at various recent events, right now our priority is our existing portfolio, which is experiencing a period of strong growth. Earnings are growing: 16% in the period if we exclude those companies affected by normalizing energy prices, 8% across the portfolio as a whole. Earnings growth is driven by the megatrends that we have selected, as well as accretive growth CapEx investment. During the period, our portfolio companies reinvested over GBP 400 million in growth CapEx, on terms that we expect will be superior to our portfolio weighted average discount rate. As that CapEx flows through to revenue, it provides good visibility over continued earnings growth. For these reasons alone, we are excited about the value growth potential within the portfolio that we are managing. But the story doesn't end there. Perhaps less well understood is the depth of the growth-based value creation potential available to our portfolio companies, the white space that we are working with our management teams to define and to grow into. These opportunities are typically not fully incorporated into our DCF approach to valuation, but in reality, we see real potential for at least some of them to crystallize. This dynamic is clearly a differentiating factor for 3i Infrastructure's portfolio relative to its listed competitors. I will give you a few examples of the work that we are doing in this regard. Let's start with our biggest investment by value, TCR. TCR is really a story of two growth drivers: lease and product penetration, and footprint expansion. To give you a sense of the relative immaturity of the ground handling equipment market, at present, management estimates that approximately 30% of total equipment is leased. When compared to aircraft leasing, where the penetration rate is greater than 50% and growing, you start to get a sense for the scale of the natural growth trend in this market. Within the leased ground handling equipment space, we estimate that TCR has a market share of about 70%, indicating that TCR is well placed to benefit from a natural pull as lease penetration increases, particularly with catalysts such as decarbonisation accelerating TCR's customers' investment decisions. In addition, TCR is using its uniquely embedded operational position within an airport's apron to expand its product offering, developing new ideas such as transportation solutions, catering, and emergency response equipment leasing. At the same time, TCR is rapidly expanding its coverage footprint. When we first invested in 2016, TCR operated at 95 airports, predominantly in Europe. Today, it operates at 212 airports, including having successfully exported its model to Asia and, more recently, the U.S. As always, and as James will describe shortly, we have adopted a balanced view in our approach to TCR's valuation. However, the combined upside potential from these opportunities materially exceeds our current DCF assumptions. We don't have time today to work through each portfolio company in depth, but briefly, some other high-level examples include ESVAGT, where we attribute no value to markets outside of Europe and the US, but we have high hopes for further internationalization, such as through the recently established Korean joint venture. We also believe that there may be significant latent value in the existing fleet, as long-term wind contracts go through their first cycle of contract renewal at higher rates due to recent inflation dynamics. At Tampnet, management is also currently working on several exciting international expansion opportunities that are not captured in our base case. Similarly, as we have explained in the past, we attribute only limited value to growth initiatives such as offshore wind and carbon capture, although the first contracts in those markets are now starting to materialize. Internationalization and diversification of technology are themes that we are pursuing at Ionesis, where core demand for healthcare-linked product sterilization is supported by one of the strongest growth trends evident throughout Europe: aging populations, present company obviously accepted. At Valorem, Infinis, and Future Biogas, we limit the development pipeline assumptions taken into our valuations, while recognizing that generation capacity shortfalls in those markets may well support continued development opportunities materially beyond those that we currently value. Finally, we would like to provide an update on DNS:NET, given that it has been a negative outlier in terms of performance. Many of you will be aware that this is an investment that has presented significant challenges in recent times. On the whole, this financial year was no exception. We reported a material write-down of DNS:NET's valuation with a half-year results in November, and DNS:NET is certainly not the only fiber rollout company that has experienced significant headwinds. The stress that we are seeing in that market is real, and some companies have either folded completely or will do so in the coming years. That said, we have invested a lot of time and effort with the company, recruited a new management team, restructured the company's subcontracting arrangements to ensure that its contractors are now appropriately incentivized to connect homes onto the network, rather than just laying bulk trunk fiber, and we still believe that there is a wider range of potential outcomes for this investment than any other in our portfolio. However, we now have a management plan which is far more deliverable, relying primarily on increasing penetration rates within DNS:NET's backbone infrastructure network. This detail is important because a business plan which emphasizes delivery of an increase in penetration should be a more predictable journey, with a number of precedents in European markets from which to anchor and support our own assumptions. We are certainly not declaring victory, but you will note that adjusting for the follow-on equity investment, the valuation has remained constant in the last six months. You can read into that that we are pleased with the progress that management is making. Hopefully, you share the sense of excitement that we feel for the value creation potential that we see across our portfolio. Our team is a close-knit group with a high-performance culture, and we are immensely proud of the track record that we have achieved to date. But we also strongly believe that we are only just getting started. I will now hand over to James. Thanks, Scott. Good morning, everyone. We outperformed our target return again, delivering a total return of 11.4% for the year. Our track record is of consistent growth in NAV per share since the start of the company, alongside a dividend that has grown every single year. You have just heard from Scott and Bernardo about why we are confident in continuing to extend that track record. Our confidence is also underpinned by our proactive approach in managing the financing of our portfolio companies. We actively manage the debt profile, as you can see here, with successful refinancing at five of our portfolio companies in the year. Our average loan-to-value ratio has fallen slightly to 32%, and we have no significant refinancing requirements in the next three financial years. When the interest rate environment changed, we were well placed. We had secured low rates and long tenure during favorable debt markets. We have an attractive weighted average cost of debt of 4.5%. We remained consistent in targeting investment-grade senior debt structures, or the equivalent where we don't seek a rating. There's no junior or mezzanine debt in the portfolio. We have ample headroom to covenants, and almost all of our long-term debt, 91%, is either fixed rate or hedged. We are consistent in our valuation approach as well. We make long-term assumptions for inflation and interest rates, and we haven't changed those assumptions over the life of the company. Our long-term inflation assumption remains 2% for UK and European CPI after the first two years of the projections. We take consensus forecasts for those first two years. These are now much closer to the long-term assumptions, generally between 2%-3% for the countries in which we invest. We have long-term cash flow models, over 20 years as a weighted average. At the end of these models, we apply a prudent terminal value, which is materially below what we might expect on exit. I wanted to give this additional color to our valuation models because my view is that not all NAVs are created equal. This matters when there's a greater focus on where a share price is in relation to NAV. To get the same valuation with a shorter model and with a plausible exit assumption after 5-7 years, you would need to use a higher discount rate for the same result. Our modelled cash flows represent a long-term hold scenario, balanced between up and downsides. Where we reflect changes in circumstances, we believe that the best practice is to do so in the cash flow projections, where possible, rather than through our discount rates. Those discount rates are consistent with the long-term assumptions I just talked about. This slide shows the movement in our weighted average discount rate over the life of the company. Our weighted average discount rate now is still 11.3%, the same as it was at the last year-end, and also the same as it was in March 2008. The discount rates used range from 10%-14%. That's quite a tight range around that average, and consistent with our target returns. As a reminder, our benchmark for discount rates is the private market for Core-plus infrastructure assets. There's still a sizable premium between that expected return from the portfolio of 11.3%, less costs, and the alternatives available in fixed income or bond proxies. At the moment, you can buy us at a discount. Our net asset value is GBP 3.3 billion. This chart shows the progression in NAV for the year. Working from the left-hand side, you can see our opening NAV was GBP 3.1 billion, or 330.6 pence per share. That's after paying the final dividend for last year. We delivered a capital return of GBP 259 million, reflecting the portfolio performance we've talked about. Overall in the year, we generated a portfolio return of 12.3%. TCR, Tampnet, and Valorem were the main outperformers this year, alongside the uplift on realisation of Attero. DNS:NET was the only negative return, as Scott explained. Our renewable energy generating companies, Infinis, Future Biogas, and Valorem, performed well despite softer spot and forecast energy prices. That capital return of GBP 259 million is after a reduction of GBP 40 million from changes in macroeconomic assumptions. Moving on to the next bar, we had an FX gain of GBP 8 million after hedging. Our hedging program insulates the company from FX volatility. Total income added GBP 194 million, supporting the dividend and cost of running the company. Our dividend target was fully covered for the year. After we deduct costs of GBP 114 million, the NAV is GBP 3.3 billion, or 362.3 pence per share. Richard announced the final dividend of 5.95 pence per share, meeting our target for the year. That will be paid to shareholders on the 12th of July. It will go ex-div on the 13th of June. You've heard from me before about our flexible funding model. We aim to be symmetrical around zero cash over time. We have a good level of liquidity, almost GBP 400 million, a similar level to half-year. We extended our GBP 900 million RCF by another year. It currently matures in November 2026. We're drawing on the facility in euros, which acts as a natural hedge against our euro portfolio and is cheaper than drawing in sterling. The rate is around 5.4% all-in at the moment. We don't have any long-term debt at 3iN level, and we expect drawings on the RCF to be repaid by selective realization of assets at the right time. This chart shows how we've managed our net cash or debt position around zero over time. Our credit facility gives us the flexibility to manage our cycle of investment and realization. That cycle can last multiple years, as you can see on this chart. I'm showing the last six years here. In fact, the average balance over the last six years is net debt of only GBP 14 million. We have a unique portfolio that is continuing to perform well, with upside to work for above what is currently reflected in our valuations. We have flexibility around funding, with strong cash generation and conservative levels of gearing at portfolio company level. We expect to repay the RCF through selective realizations at the right time. I'll now hand back to Scott for Q&A. Thank you. Thanks, James. I think there's a mic floating around, so if you'd be kind enough to state your name and the institution that you're representing, we'll take the question. Shall we start with Alex here, please, Hannah? Thank you. Thanks. Alex Wheeler, RBC. Two from me, please. Just firstly on how we should think about those new opportunities in terms of what is the threshold for those being incorporated into valuations, given you talk around the conservatism there. Then my second question is on expectations for potential future investment from a group level into any assets, given that you did that for a number of assets over the course of this year. Thank you. Sure. It's a tricky question around the value and the upsides. I guess one way to think of it is the deeply out-of-the-money options that we attach to the growth potential in our portfolio companies. Pretty much all of the portfolio demonstrates follow-on growth investment opportunity. We typically like to see contracts starting to come through before we'll incorporate those opportunities into our valuation. It's not speculative CapEx, so the contract cycle would typically drive when something would be fully incorporated into our valuation. Before then, we may evaluate a pipeline or take an approach to valuation of a pipeline, but it would be on a heavily discounted basis. It's finding the balance between maintaining prudent assumptions and also recognizing that these businesses are growing very quickly and that the growth opportunities that we're describing are real. I don't know if James, did you want to take the second question around follow-on investment? Yeah. Again, it links to the sort of opportunities we see in front of us and the funding for the portfolio companies themselves. We talked about the cash generation and the amount of that cash that we're reinvesting in CapEx. We talk about as earnings grow, then the portfolio companies can have access to greater financing, debt financing, against those grown earnings. Then occasionally, we'll want to put more equity in. An example is Future Biogas. We put some more equity in to acquire some anaerobic digestion plants that they were already managing, but we've bought them. It is on a case-by-case basis. We maintain our target for investment-grade type structures and quantum of debt at portfolio company level. Often, we won't need to put any equity in at all to fund the future, the CapEx. The other thing to reiterate, the growth that we're seeing and what we're expecting to fund in the near term is through the portfolio rather than adding any new platform companies to the portfolio. Iain, please, Hannah. Over here. Good morning. It's Iain Scouller from Stifel. Wondering if you'd just talk a bit about income that you're expecting to receive from companies this year. Obviously, you're expecting quite a high level of reinvestment again. I think some companies generally are quite keen to pay down debt, given where interest rates are at the moment. What are your sort of expectations for income that you will receive at the 3i Infrastructure structure level in the year ahead? Should I take that? I think this obviously links to the dividend target decision. When we look at the dividend target, clearly one of the main things we are projecting out is the income for the next year. We considered with the board that the 6.3% growth for FY25 was appropriate, given our projections of income. I'd like to see that being fully covered again. Yeah, the income is more predictable than the cash because, as you've seen, there's been a bit of outperformance on the CapEx investment through portfolio companies. We'll take a judgment as we go through the year and as we see the opportunities arise as to how we view the cash, whether it's retained and reinvested in the portfolio companies or whether it's distributed up. Equally, we said before, these are discretionary CapEx opportunities. We've got an eye on what cash we want to take up, what cash we want to leave behind, and the levels of gearing at portfolio companies. That's more of a balancing act, but it's one that we have control over. Income is more predictable, and as the companies grow, we're getting more income. Chris Brown from JP Morgan. Just a quick question on the refinancings. I just wonder whether you could talk a little bit about the conditions in the debt markets at the moment for your companies and also how what you've locked into compares with what you might have assumed in those models. Perhaps Bernardo, you can describe some of the market environment, and then James, you can take what's going into the valuation. I think what we've seen through the year is a considerable appetite from lenders to looking at our portfolio companies. Good terms, good conditions, and plenty of demand. That was certainly the case in TCR, just on Nasdaq, GCX before that. Debt markets actually look a lot better than equity markets from that perspective. We've seen good credit conditions all around. If you want to complement. Yes. There's still good appetite, and thanks to the lenders in the room for the debt at our portfolio companies. In terms of the valuation, I would say that the rates we've been achieving were consistent with our valuations. Our approach to the debt assumptions in the valuation is similar to the inflation assumptions in the valuations. In the long term, we've got our longer-term assumption, but in the nearer term where we are expecting to refinance in the next couple of years, we would factor in where the interest rate curves are at the time we're striking the valuation. It broadly came in where we were expecting. I'd reiterate again, that first three years of the cash flow projections, there's very little refinancing in there. We do expect to refinance ahead of maturities of facilities in good time. Sometimes we'll do that when we think we can lock in slightly better rates, but that's not always possible. Thank you. Hi there. It's Conor Finn from Barclays here. On the growth CapEx, can you maybe outline priorities for the next, say, 24 months and maybe how that has changed, particularly in relation to the energy companies given current pricing? Yeah. Right. CapEx priorities. As we stated before, our main focus is to support the portfolio in general in pursuing the growth opportunity. We see opportunity pretty much spread across the portfolio. It's hard to individualize one company or the other. As far as energy prices impact on those plans, where we have expansion plans in the energy sector, if you like, is Infinis's expansion in the solar PV space. That's typically done against CFD contracts. What we've seen those doing in the UK is adjusting upwards, at least the maximum, the cap being adjusted upwards to reflect increased cost of equipment. Similarly, for Valorem in France and its other geography, it's all built against long-term feed-in tariffs or equivalent. We've seen also those adjusting up for the increased cost in equipment. In the meantime, we've seen actually the cost of, say, solar panels, for instance, coming off a little bit so that the renewable sector, if you want, we see it adjusting or seeing some adjustment between CapEx and feed-in tariffs. Are there any more questions? Okay. In which case, we'll finish there and say thanks very much for coming, and we look forward to seeing some of you on the road in the coming weeks.