Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our interim results presentation for 2026. I am Eric Lakin, CEO, and I am joined this morning by Ian Ashton, who joined us as Chief Financial Officer at the end of June. This is Ian's first set of results with TT, and it is great to have him alongside me today. I would also like to thank Richard Webb, who has very effectively served as Interim CFO since May last year, and I wish him well for the future. Ian's appointment is one of a number of changes to the board this year. Phil Swash joined as Chairman in May, and I am pleased to say he is in the room with us today if any of you wish to meet him afterwards. Also, Mary Waldner joined last week as Senior Independent Director and Chair of the Audit Committee. Together, these appointments significantly strengthen our experience as we progress in this next phase of TT's journey, and I am delighted to serve with them on the board. Today, we will update you on the progress we have made, the actions we have taken, and our priorities for the second half and beyond. When we spoke in March, I described 2025 as a year of transition. It was a year in which we faced real operational challenges, took decisive action to address them, and rebuilt the foundations of the business to deliver sustainable, profitable growth. I also said that our focus for 2026 would shift from stabilizing the business to executing against a clearly established value creation plan. Six months on, this is what has happened. The first half has been about disciplined execution and delivery, and I am pleased to report this is now translating into tangible results. The headlines for the half is a material improvement in profitability. Margin expansion and stronger commercial momentum, reflecting the actions we took during 2025, improved execution, and the delivery of our strategic priorities in the first half. Adjusted operating profit was up 37% to GBP 18.5 million, with operating margin up 230 basis points to 8.1% compared to the first half last year. There are three drivers behind the profit improvement. First, the benefits of the operational actions we took in EMS. The Cleveland turnaround has been implemented, and the site delivered consistent profitability throughout the period. Second, the return of our Components business to profitability, driven by underlying business improvement and by the closure of the site at Plano, which was significantly loss-making in the first half of last year. And third, our strategic priorities are delivering. The divisional realignment has been implemented. The cost reduction program is substantially complete, and we have seen strong momentum in order intake right across the group. That order momentum was broad-based across multiple sectors, and it gives us good visibility of revenue coverage into the second half. To illustrate that, our order book at the end of June was approximately GBP 550 million, which is 20% higher than the same point last year. Reflecting that momentum and the benefits of our cost program building through the second half, the board now expects adjusted operating profit for the year to be ahead of current market expectations. In short, we have moved from operational turnaround to disciplined execution and delivery. Let me take you through the framework driving that progress. At the full year, we set out four clear priorities that would define our next phase: divisional realignment, our cost reduction program, sales transformation, and portfolio optimization. This morning, I want to report what they have delivered over the past six years, with each of these four initiatives now driving tangible benefits to the group. First, divisional realignment. The transition to a product-led organization structure was completed in April. The group is aligned around three clear divisions. Power, which includes power control, conversion, and distribution technologies. EMS, or Electronics Manufacturing Services, with a focus on engineering-led high-mix, low-volume PCBA and high-level assemblies. Components, which, as the name implies, supplies individual components, including a wide range of resistors, potentiometers, and optoelectronics. This structure aligns sites with common technologies and production characteristics and also better reflects how we engage with our customers. To give an example, there are several situations in which we have a new or existing EMS customer that can be supported across multiple EMS sites, and we can adapt to their evolving regional supply chain needs, such as a recent transfer from China to Malaysia manufacturing or support requirements for localization. In Power, we have focused investments in our technology roadmap, including next-generation silicon carbide power modules and Additive Layer Manufacturing products, both of which were showcased at the recent Farnborough Airshow. The creation of these technology platforms, as well as our R&D Center of Excellence, has strengthened global collaboration and our sales pipeline. We are already seeing the benefits. Teams are working more effectively and collaboratively across our global footprint, and we have secured new customer wins spanning multiple sites. The result is a more agile, customer-focused organization. Second, our cost reduction program. This was substantially completed during the first half, and it is progressing as planned. The costs associated with the program of approximately GBP 3 million were recognized within our operating profit in the first half and were effectively self-funded during the period. The costs are behind us, while the financial benefits will be delivered in the second half. We are therefore on track to deliver the previously announced GBP 3 million of net savings during 2026. From 2027 onwards, the annualized benefit is expected to be more than GBP 6 million. This gives us a leaner organization and enables a more devolved operating model with clearer accountability at the operating company level. It also provides a strong, more resilient platform for continued margin expansion. It is important to note that the cost reductions have been focused at the administrative levels. It is vital that we continue to preserve and invest in the crucial capabilities that customers value and provide sustainable competitive advantage, including specialist engineering skills, operational and supply chain excellence, and commercial talent with relevant domain knowledge to understand customer needs. The third component of the framework is sales transformation, which is a priority I am perhaps most encouraged by, because it is the one that shifts TT from recovery back to growth. During the period, we continued to invest in our commercial organization, expanding business development resource, especially in North America and China, improving capabilities in strategic selling, driving consistency in pricing the bid review process, improved deployment of our CRM, and strengthened pipeline management. These initiatives are beginning to deliver greater commercial discipline that involves a focus on market segments and applications in which we can add most value and the right to win. It is driving stronger order intake with a book-to-bill ratio of 112% for the group and a stronger order book across all three divisions. We have seen improved conversion of the opportunities in our pipeline and encouraging new customer logos and NBO wins, which I will come onto later. I will come back to those wins in more detail shortly because they tell an an important story about the breadth of demand for our technologies. There remains further work to do here, but we are building a more disciplined and more effective commercial organization, and the benefits are coming through. Finally, portfolio optimization. Following the completion of the strategic review of the Components business announced with our full-year results, we have tested market interest in acquiring the business, and we have received an encouraging number of indications of interest. The board is now evaluating a potential divestment, and I will reemphasize what we said at the full year, any decision to execute a transaction will remain subject to value, and there can be no certainty as to the outcome at this stage. We have been very encouraged by the return to profitability of Components during the period. The business is performing better in a growing market, and that strengthens our position whichever route we ultimately take. Alongside this, disciplined capital allocation remains a priority, balancing selective investment opportunities to strengthen our core business with further deleveraging and future capital returns. Taken together, these four priorities are doing what they said would do, driving margin expansion, sharpening our focus, and building a platform for sustainable growth and delivering improving financial performance. With that, I will hand over to Ian, who will take you through the financial results in more detail. Great. Can you turn yours back? Thank you, Eric, and good morning, everybody. I am very pleased and privileged to be here as CFO of TT. This is a business with great opportunities, in very good markets, and it is already getting very firmly back on track. That was my belief before I joined, and my first two months in the business have more than confirmed it. I am excited at what is ahead. It has been great to meet many people across the group already, to start to benefit from their knowledge, and to see their passion for the business and their own excitement at what is possible in the future. Also, a word of thanks from me to Richard, who has done a lot of sterling work in his time as Interim CFO and has been extremely helpful in enabling a smooth and very effective handover. The key financial metrics for the half. I won't talk through all of these during the presentation, and some I'll look at in more detail in later slides. But for now, revenue in H1 showed a modest decline of 2.7% versus the prior year, but that was affected by two significant one-off factors that had been flagged previously, and absent these, sales grew around 4%. We expect to see positive organic growth with or without any adjustments for one-offs in H2. Operating profit grew by GBP 5 million or 37%. The key drivers were the strong turnaround in the Cleveland site, going from loss-making to profit, and the benefits of closing the underperforming Plano site. As a consequence, the other profitability metrics are also very positive versus the prior year, with substantial percentage increases in PBT and EPS. I've referenced on here that these reported numbers are despite an unusually high effective tax rate that's due to the fact we cannot yet recognize a deferred tax asset in respect of U.S. tax losses. Finally, I'd also highlight ROIC at 18%, which is a healthy number, and leverage at 1.1x, flat on the 2025 full year after some modest inventory build in H1, but well down on where we were a year ago. Revenue. This business has great opportunities, and importantly, capacity to grow the top line, and that will, of course, be the biggest sustainable driver of value in the future. The headline for H1 was a 2.7% decline at constant currency, as I mentioned, but the underlying picture was positive. This slide shows the simple year-over-year bridge with the movements by division. Power was flat over the prior year. Aerospace & Defence, which will be very positive long-term drivers, represent around 2/3 of that business. But as noted on here, there were some customer-driven delays which held the headline revenue number back a bit in the half. Conversely, we expect H2 to be positive. Power sales into Industrials and Healthcare were positive in the half. EMS's headline number, a decline of 8%, was affected by the well-flagged product transfers from Suzhou to Kuantan in the period. Absent that one-off impact, the business grew quite healthily at around 7%. Finally, Components delivered growth of 6%, despite the approximately 5% impact of the Plano closure. This slide summarizes that 37% constant currency profit growth over and above a very small currency benefit of GBP 0.5 million you can see there. I'll talk through the divisional results in a moment, but you can see good year-over-year improvement in EMS and Components, driving the group improvement in H1. The former due to the strong progress in Cleveland, as I mentioned. Power is our highest-margin business and generated GBP 14 million profit in the half, albeit it was slightly down on the prior year due to the sales phasing. As I said, we're confident that will come back in H2. I'll now look briefly at the three divisions' performance in the period. Firstly, Power. I've mentioned the key drivers of the sales result. As I said, we expect H2 to be stronger. Agreements recently signed provide good momentum and confidence about the near and longer term, with the near-term outlook corroborated by the robust book-to-bill ratio and the longer term by the strong macro outlook in A&D in particular. The Power operating margin of 14% was slightly down on prior year due to the flat sales in the period, but it remains healthy, and we think there is certainly still scope to improve it over time. Eric will give some detail on some of the commercial successes in the period that give us confidence for H2 and beyond. In EMS, the top line was distorted by the customer transfer, as we've said, but showed encouraging, robust growth absent that one-off factor. The operating margin is up to 8%, not where it needs to be yet, but showing very solid progress. The key driver of that improvement has been the turnaround in Cleveland. I've been to that site myself, and the management team, under new leadership, have clearly done an excellent job over the last six to 12 months. There is, as always, more that can and needs to be done, and I'm confident it will be done there, but the site was profitable throughout the half and is very much back on track. As with almost all of our sites, they have existing capacity to cope with substantially increased demand. Components was also a positive story in the half, growing well and back to profit. The sales growth is being driven by better markets and better execution on our part, and we expect the positive momentum to continue. That top-line growth, along with the benefits of closing the Plano site, have driven the division back to profitability. We're confident the top-line momentum will continue to help drive the margin upwards, and Eric's already commented on the status of the strategic review of the business. I thought it'd be helpful to also include the group sales split by end market and by geography. A&D is the largest segment, weighted heavily to Power, followed by Auto & Electrification, Industrials, and then Healthcare. The sales through distribution are largely in the Components division, about 80% of that 16% on the chart. So we're well exposed to some strong macro tailwinds. Geographically, we have good diversification, and we're notably well exposed to the currently stronger-growing regions of the U.S. and Asia. So some very good opportunities for growth, and Eric will talk further on what we're doing to ensure we get after those as effectively and quickly as possible. This slide shows the key elements of the cash flow during the period. The high profit was, of course, a positive factor in the half, leading to EBITDA of GBP 24 million. Of the items between that and the free cash flow, the key one is working capital, as highlighted on the slide, which this period saw an outflow of around GBP 13 million. This was driven by increases in inventory in Power ahead of some of the delayed revenue already mentioned, and in EMS at the Kuantan site as they build inventory to support the new business that has been transferred there from Suzhou. Of the other items, the only one I will highlight is the GBP 3.8 million cash spent on restructuring and exceptional items, the majority of that related to the Plano closure, and also the closure of the small EMS plant in Mexicali. Due to the lower cash conversion in H1, free cash flow was nil in the period. We certainly expect it to be positive in H2 and therefore the year as a whole. I'd also emphasize that on an LTM basis, i.e., June to June, the cash conversion was at 108% and free cash inflow was GBP 23 million. Free cash flow generation is, of course, the key long-term value driver of the business, and I believe that's well understood by all of the management teams. It will remain front and center in all of our decision-making. As an aside, in the appendix to the slide deck, there are some more detailed guidance points covering some of the full- year 2026 numbers, including obviously a few pertaining to cash flow. A quick recap of the key balance sheet metrics and also our current financing. Net debt, excluding leases, was GBP 52 million at the period end, broadly flat on 2025 year-end and well down on a year ago. Leverage at 1.1x is at a very manageable level, but nevertheless, we do expect to reduce this further in the second half. We also have good levels of financing in place. The RCF of GBP 105 million was almost all undrawn at the half- year. As Eric and Richard reported in March, during Q1, this facility was extended to June 2028. The private placement notes have maturity dates of 2028 and 2031, both at similar rates. This amounts to 3.65% on average. We, of course, very much value our lenders' ongoing support and will, of course, be starting to plan for the two 2028 maturity dates well ahead of time. In short, the group is in robust shape as regards to financing. Finally from me, this slide shows the board's current, and in certain respects, initial thinking on capital allocation, which we thought it would be useful to share. To be clear, at this stage, our focus is on the left-hand side of this slide, i.e., ensuring the business is generating sustainable and increasing levels of free cash flow. That will in turn allow any organic investment that's needed to drive the business further forwards. So pretty basic. We want and intend to get into a virtuous upward spiral of ever-improving organic profit and cash performance. How we would think about the other ways of deploying cash generated, whether from organic performance or, for example, from a Components disposal if that were to happen, is shown on the rest of the slide. Firstly, absent anything more transformational that might be considered in the medium or longer term, we aim to keep leverage below 1.5x. Obviously, we're below that level today, and it may also go a bit lower in H2. We'll always keep that under close review and ensure we're doing the right thing for the long-term health of the business. Secondly, dividend. We do not currently expect to reinstate the dividend for the 2026 financial year, but we'll of course keep that under very close review. We know it is rightly important for some shareholders. It's fair to say that if and when we do reinstate the dividend, we'd expect to start at a prudent level and build from there. Thirdly, portfolio. We've discussed Components. Proceeds of a sale will give us options and flexibility beyond what we have today, but the priorities for deploying any proceeds would be as just described and as shown, starting from the left. The other aspect of portfolio, i.e., bolt-on M&A opportunities, is something we intend and need to look at as part of longer-term value creation, but to be clear, is not an immediate priority. The board will provide greater clarity in the future on its approach to M&A and selective bolt-on acquisitions, including the discipline criteria that would underpin any future activity. In summary, our capital allocation framework will help ensure a very disciplined focus on unlocking and maximizing the substantial value we believe exists in the business, and with a clear goal of delivering superior returns to shareholders over time. That concludes my section, so I will now hand it back to Eric. Thank you, Ian. I think what Ian has just taken you through is a materially stronger financial position, significantly improved profitability, better margins, and a balance sheet that is increasingly giving us more flexibility. What I would like to do now is spend a few minutes on the commercial side of the business and point to some clear examples of our strategy working in action. Our investment in the commercial organization is translating into a stronger pipeline, an increasing rate of customer wins, and a growing order backlog. During the period, we secured material contract awards with blue-chip customers across several end markets, and post-period end, we signed a significant multi-year agreement with Rolls-Royce, which I will come back to in a moment. In EMS, we won two new logos in scientific and analytical instruments, and in Power, we secured a new contract to supply power electronics for subsea oil and gas applications. The commercial pipeline continues to strengthen. We have signed a letter of intent with MBDA, a leading European defence company, based on our credentials in ruggedized power electronics that could drive significant long-term value. Our Power business is engaged on the Future Combat Air System, which has the potential to be one of Europe's largest next-generation defence programs. We are also engaged on major armored vehicles, including Boxer and Challenger, through Rheinmetall BAE Systems, and we continue to support the Typhoon and F-35 air defence platforms. Against a backdrop of increasing defence investment across Europe and the U.S., and an accelerating focus on delivering critical capability, TT is well positioned to support our customers through the next phase of production growth. What I want to highlight here is the breadth. New customer wins for EMS and Healthcare and a return to growth in the wafer fab capital market segment demonstrate commercial traction extending beyond Aerospace & D efence, and these wins span each of our three divisions and provide broad-based momentum. I want to bring two of these relationships to life, starting with Rolls-Royce. Shortly after the period end, we signed a significant multi-year agreement with Rolls-Royce to supply high-reliability solutions for all of their wide-body civil aircraft engines throughout their operational lifetime. The content is mission-critical power electronics and precision magnetics that support the performance and reliability of those engines. This is not a new relationship. It builds on more than four decades of collaboration between our two businesses. What the agreement does is formalize and extend that partnership and reinforce TT's position as a trusted design and manufacturing partner to one of the most demanding customers in aerospace. For us, the significance is twofold. It provides attractive long-term revenue visibility, and it demonstrates our ability to convert deep engineering relationships into strategic, long-dated commercial agreements. The second example is a program rather than a customer. We have supported the Eurofighter Typhoon program for almost 30 years through production, upgrade, and in-service support, the kind of longevity that provides real long-term revenue visibility. During the first half, we secured further material contract awards on the program, reinforcing our position on one of Europe's leading air defence platforms. What makes Typhoon a useful case study is what comes next. As I mentioned just now, we are engaged on the Future Combat Air System, known as FCAS, supporting the transition from today's Typhoon platform to Europe's next-generation combat aircraft. The capability we have built over three decades is precisely what positions us for the programs that follow. That capability sits across our sites in Manchester, Barnstaple, Bedlington, and Fairford. Highly skilled engineering teams that create a strong foundation for future defence programs. As you can see, targeted investment in technology and business development capabilities is leading to rising commercial prospects and gives us the confidence to support new Aerospace & Defence contracts in the future. Finally, turning to the outlook. We enter the second half with improving momentum and with increasing pace and effectiveness in execution across the group. Starting with revenue and our markets, we expect revenue to return to organic growth in the second half, supported by a strong order book, which at the end of June is 20% above the same point last year. Demand in Aerospace & Defence continues to provide a strong foundation for the group, supported by increasing defence investment and a healthy pipeline of program opportunities. Within EMS, we are encouraged by increasing commercial activity, improving conditions in healthcare and life sciences, the successful transition of customer production in Asia, and order growth in the semiconductor supply chain. Regarding operational performance, a drive for productivity improvements combined with a lean cost structure is supporting profitable growth and margin expansion. Strategically, our focus remains on commercial execution and operational excellence, and we continue to optimize the portfolio. The board is evaluating a potential divestment of the Components division, with any transaction remaining subject to value. With respect to the balance sheet, cash generation is expected to strengthen significantly in the second half, with further deleveraging expected for the full year. Reflecting this momentum, together with the benefits of our cost reduction program building through the second half, the board now expects adjusted operating profit for this year to be ahead of current market expectations. The progress we have made over the past 12 months has transformed TT into a stronger, more resilient business with a clearer strategic focus. Last year, we were fixing operational problems. To date, we are executing against a clearly defined strategy with improving margins, a stronger balance sheet, and genuine commercial momentum. I just want to use this opportunity to acknowledge that this is a team sport, and the execution of the turnaround would not be possible without the support, commitment, and expertise of the many great people we have throughout the business, for which I am very thankful. There remains a lot more to do, and continuous improvement remains a mantra. As I said earlier, we have moved from stabilizing the business to executing against a clearly established value creation plan. We are increasingly seeing evidence that our strategy is delivering, and that gives us confidence in our ability to deliver growth and long-term value for our shareholders. Thank you very much for your time this morning. Ian and I are very happy to take your questions. Thank you, Robin. Good morning, gents. It is Joel Spungin from Investec. I have just got two questions. First of all, on your guidance and when you talk about the return to organic growth in the second half, presumably against the -2.7%, is there any noise in the second half still, either from the customer that transferred to the Kuantan site? Is that now completely out of the numbers for the second half? Anything related to Plano, just to help us frame that comment. Yeah, sure. I will pick up on that and you can— Okay. —add if, augment, indeed. So, with the customer transfer, it's complete in the sense that production ceased in Suzhou, China at the end of last year, as required by the customer. All of the capability and the drawings and the manufacturing, the first articles have all been successfully deployed. The next phase is to ramp up to more consistent production volumes. It's that ramp-up phase in the first half, which meant against a high comparative period, we've had some impact in the first half. In the second half, there's still a ramp-up to be done, and with the orders there's always an execution risk with any manufacturing business. But we're quite confident of the trajectory, and therefore, we won't expect noise as such, or to making any such adjustments in the second half to effectively have an adjusted underlying growth. We expect the headline growth to be there, even taking into account Plano. Plano, obviously, is roughly GBP 10 million of sales in total last year. They aren't in the numbers this year. But taking that into account, we expect to return to growth in the second half. That GBP 14 million effect in the first half from the customer transfer is going to be significantly lower in the second half? Correct. Much less negligible noise year-over-year from that. You can take the 4% that we referenced for H1 as a sort of underlying number, as a reasonable steer as to broadly where we might expect to see H2. Thanks. Just a more strategic question. Obviously, you have announced there is a review of Components underway, and that is going to be resolved one way or another in the next few months. I was wondering if you could talk about the synergies between the two remaining businesses, Power and EMS. How closely knit are they? What benefits do you have from having them under the same roof? Or would it make sense for them to be separate? Yeah. Excellent. A great question, and it is something I have really spent quite a lot of time getting my arms around since joining. There is no question in my mind, there is a strong synergy and fit between EMS and Power, which is different from Components we have talked about in the past. Very different characteristics, and there is limited cross-selling. For me, one of the tests is you look at the intercompany transfers, and it is quite material between Power and EMS sites. To illustrate the point, there is one, our Kansas site, Power site in the U.S., their biggest supplier is Cleveland. There is a real advantage. We are seeing that with new o pportunities and new customer wins. It is a real advantage, particularly in Aerospace & Defence and ITAR compliance sites and so on, where we can offer a full package. We look at a typical power conversion box, DC-to-DC converter. It will have PCBAs within it. Having that vertically integrated supply can give a real edge in terms of the design authority, the speed to manufacture, quality control. It is meaningful. We are also looking at opportunities where you are speaking to a customer and we are doing some cross-selling, where there could be a Power customer or EMS, and they, "Oh, I did not appreciate fully that actually you also have got capability in an adjacent area." It is very relevant already and increasingly so in the future. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Morning. It's Henry Carver from Singer. Just a couple of queries on the new business wins, new contract wins. First of all, the Rolls one, obviously, you've been partners with them for a long time. Was that the end of a previous multi-year arrangement that then you won a renewal for? Or was there any different way in which you're doing business with them? A bit of both. With Rolls-Royce, it's a four-decade partnership, and typically it's been a rolling three-year to five-year contract upgrade. This time around is different in that under Tufan's leadership with critical sole source suppliers like us with their engines are keen to get life of type arrangements. So the support, whilst there's still at least two units produced a year of an engine. So this could run for multi-decades from now. For us, we're very keen to enter that very long-term relationship, but with the right terms. It's really important we get the visibility, adjusting for inflation, our own material supply. As part of that, you'd might expect there was appropriate discussions around pricing. It's a true win-win. You don't always see that in business, which is why Rolls-Royce took the very unusual step of having a joint signing with us and publicize us as a strategic supplier because it's a really good relationship. It's good for us. It's good for them. In addition to that, it opens up the path to potential new business as well and new products beyond what we're supplying already. It's currently from two sites, Bedlington and Barnstaple, but we could do more with them. I referenced earlier, the potential for crossing EMS. That's a good example of that. Extending that into the other new business wins, just trying to see what the link is between the sales transformation and how you're actually fundamentally going to win new business. How much of it is just because those end markets are really strong at the moment and you've got a good enough position to win new business, or a combination of the two, I guess. Yeah. Clearly, defence has been a thing. For sure, it is a combination of the two. Clearly, a real driver for future growth is getting top line growth. It is one thing doing divisional realignment, taking out costs, improving the bottom line, but we need to return back to growth. There has been a huge amount of focus. There is a whole range of initiatives within that, and I gave example of some of those during the voiceover. It is deliberately, despite taking out cost, adding to our business development team. For example, we had no dedicated BD people in China whatever until a few months ago. Now we do, and not only that, we are going to exhibitions. We are getting significant leads from going to China exhibitions on the medical device sector, in industrials. You can tangible see the benefits going from leads to qualified opportunities to order intake. That would be much harder in a difficult market. Combining that with a market improvement, we are seeing the benefit. The same story, particularly in the U.S. Components is another example. You will see that market is recovering. It has since the beginning of this calendar year, which is great. Our peers are seeing a similar recovery in high book-to-bill. If you had not taken the action around getting our pricing right, improved marketing, some product innovations, we would not have captured the benefits in that rising market as we would have done. It is certainly a combination of the two. Thanks. Morning. Toby Thorrington from, excuse me, Equity Development. Three from me, please. Two on contracts, one on tax, I think. Following on from Henry's comment on regarding the Eurofighter— Yeah. —material award. Could you again clarify whether that's incremental in terms of products supplied? Is it incremental in terms of length of contract? A bit more detail on that would be helpful, please. Yeah. So with Eurofighter, it's an extension of the existing contracts we have. So Eurofighter we sell through the tier ones, typically like BAE Systems. So it's extension of that. Anyone following the defence market may or might be surprised with a continuation of a very quite an old platform, but there's often developments and enhancements. So for this example, with the power electronics, there's always ongoing improvements in the weight, in the form factors, in efficiency, so we incorporate those. So it's effectively, although the airframe is very similar, it's an upgrade within that. So we're providing, in effect, it's new products. So some of our design engineering is supporting that, but it means we can continue with the platform and keep the competition at bay, if you will. Okay, lovely. Thank you. In the presentation, you briefly mentioned wins in the subsea oil and gas sector. I notice you have Baker Hughes on the slide. I'd be interested to hear a bit more about that, please. Yeah, I highlight that just because it shows the diversity of our end markets, and it was actually quite a significant win for us, a multimillion-dollar win. It's with our magnetics businesses. So it just highlights there's a lot of quite sophistication in some segments you wouldn't necessarily associate with power electronics, but the sort of sensors and controls needed for the subsea sector. It actually lends itself quite well to what we do. What I like about it is it's a good reference logo, but there are other customers out there in their sector that we don't serve, and we're talking to today. Yeah. It's a very high-growth sector. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Tax, one for Ian. Perhaps you can help us out. Small refund in the cash flow in half one. Liability is GBP 20 million payable on the balance sheet at the end of the first half. Can you just give us some kind of steer as to what you think the cash tax might be? Without getting too much into the weeds. The reason for China in particular is the driver of that, where we get refunds for reasons which frankly I probably don't want to get into right now. There's a timing issue there, predominantly in China, which means that, as you say, very modest inflow, in fact, in the first half, and then about GBP 6 million outflow in the second half. Okay. Normal cash tax relative to P&L tax annual, do you think? Yeah, broadly, yes. Okay. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Lovely. Thank you. Hi, I am Mark Fielding from RBC. Couple of questions, please. Firstly, on EMS, I think, Ian, when you were talking in your bit of the presentation, you referenced the margin improvement, but there was still more to do. Assuming that there has not been a material shift versus what was GMS before, and advise me if I am wrong on that, then it did not spend much sustainable period of time above 8% margins historically. So I am curious, just what is the potential and the opportunity on that one? Yeah. Maybe start with that. Shall I pick that one up, Ian? Yeah. First part, it is broadly the same as GMS. The one difference is Fairford before the cable harness business was now part of Power, because it is more naturally fitted within Power, and it is common customers. So effectively, EMS is the three sites that do PCBA assembly, high level assembly, and box build. So that is Suzhou, Kuantan, and Cleveland. If you look at the EMS peers, particularly some very high volume companies, Flex, Jabil, Plexus, typically it is a high single-digit margin EBIT business, but they are higher volume, more high volume, lower mix, than us. I will not give any forecast, but I think it will always be a lower margin business in Power because it does not have as much design or engineering content. It is more outsourced manufacturing. But the flavor we have, the high mix engineering lead should mean that we have got the potential to have higher margins than our peers, even though some of the listed peers have much more volume. So hopefully that gives you a flavor of what is possible. But it is not going to be reached to the levels of Power that we see today. Great. I think I said the same thing about Power. We see there is margin opportunity in both of those businesses and not least driven by volume. There is capacity there to drive more volume and just the operating leverage that comes from that. Yeah. Secondly, just on cash flow and cash conversion, obviously looking for 70%-80% this year. There has been a lot of moving parts in the group the last couple of years. I suppose, just how do we think about the normalization of cash flow, the normalization of cash conversion now? Yeah. So 70%, 80% we think is, clearly as the business grows, that will drag a little bit of working capital along with it. But 80% we think is a sensible assumption going forward. There will always be sort of the odd spike up or down, but I think that is a reasonable assumption for the medium term. If we do that, we are clearly throwing off sustainable free cash flow, which gives us some of the options that we talked about. Great. Thank you. All right. Rich Hill from Jefferies. Just one from me. I just want to narrow in on the A&D and looking at your contracts you've pulled out, the JV between BAE Systems and Rheinmetall, the Boxer Challenger. I wondered, those are quite U.K.-centric, although they have brought in the European partners. Is there an opportunity there to explore onto the continent and access some of the larger growth that's there with the U.K. budget constraints, et cetera, that we see here? Great question. Yes. I think we do have, it's fair to say, that U.K. is the newest -centric proportion of A&D customers and business within the defence supply chain. For example, we serve JSF through a U.K.-based Tier 1, and they supply the prime in the U.S. There are some challenges with accessing European defence programs because of work share arrangements and such like. So, in some cases, we'll need to consider partnerships, and it could be commercial arrangements, or it could mean some form of getting some sort of footprint in Europe to do that. So one of the reasons we highlighted MBDA partnership and announced that is that's one such example of how we could potentially access a very large, sizable future defence program in continental Europe without necessarily having physical manufacturing presence locally. So we are looking to do more of that. So watch this space, but I think there's the potential to do more than we currently do. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Mark Fielding. Just a quick follow-up question. In terms of that strong order book momentum, how do we think about the delivery timeline of the order book? At times in the past, it was quite elongated, multi-year orders, or is this more immediate conversion type stuff? Yeah. No, great. It is a whole range. For example, Components and order intake has been very significant. Typical lead time, 10 weeks. So that gives us visibility for three months typically. For EMS and Power, they are more similar. It can vary a lot. Lead times can be more like six months or so. It depends on the product. It could be if it is engineering led. Some can be much longer than that. Some can be shorter if it is existing product. The order book can include everything from deliveries in a few weeks to multi-year. It is a real range. I would say probably a useful way of looking at it is we have got very good visibility of this year through to the calendar year. So we effectively for EMS and Power, we can see we have got the order book coverage for our revenue expectations for the year. It is all about delivery. There is no book and ship risk. There is a little element around the Components type business as you expect, but that is closing as the year progresses. Then you look at there is a tail of orders that go into next year and beyond. So it is quite a range of durations within that. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Andrew Simms from Berenberg. Eric, you mentioned talent, getting people into the business, both in the engineering side, but also on the sales and domain knowledge side. Yes. How is that going? It's a competitive space, I suppose, from the point of view of what TT offers now as a place to work and the offering. How is that evolving now? Yeah, no, it's a great question. It certainly helps when we have a bit of a skip in our step and we're getting improved results because any ambitious, capable recruit will look at a business and think they want to be part of that journey. We've had some good successes in attracting talent around the world. In particular, as I mentioned, the focus on BD in particular has been U.S. and China, but engineering has been throughout. I think one of the selling points. First of all, it's an interesting business. We cover multiple sectors that we've talked about, whether it's healthcare, semiconductor, CapEx, A&D, so really exciting programs. But the size of the business is quite interesting, and it's a similar discussion I have with a number of customers at the Farnborough Airshow, so it seemed to resonate. We are big enough that we've got really interesting, diverse footprint. We've got 20 sites around the world, 16 manufacturing bases, a lot of capabilities we can draw across regions and across different locations. So engineering depth, so we can support a U.S. aircraft company in the U.S. with engineering R&D capability in the U.K., et cetera. It's quite compelling, but we are small enough to be agile and responsive. On a customer point of view, I'll ensure that I'm meeting the appropriate people. They get senior-level airtime and responsiveness they wouldn't get from others. They're definitely getting feedback from them around compare us to some multi-billion companies that don't necessarily adapt to the needs. That also applies for individual hiring. Typically, what I am seeing is people coming from large companies, and they do not necessarily get the time or visibility that they would otherwise get, and they can join us. A recent person joined, another BD professional in China that joined from a very large EMS, one of the top three EMS companies in China. Really capable, but he felt he can make much more of a difference with us, and also we get the right comp and ben's incentive plans as well together. It is not completely straightforward. In the U.S., TT brand is not that well known. Some of the sub-brands are to an extent, but we are making good progress on that, and I have seen a couple of examples of engineers recently. In Kansas, you have got a couple of big firms down the road, including Garmin and others. A couple have gone and then realized the culture is not what they want. They have come back again. I think it is an area we are focused on and getting things on LinkedIn, you might see. Making good progress there, but more to do because it is really important to our lifeblood engineering, sales, operations, and supply chain. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. All done. Okay. I think we are all done. Well, thank you very much for coming again, and really appreciate the questions, and happy to chat to you afterwards. Thank you. All right. Thank you.