Good morning, everybody, and it is great to see so many of you on the call today. I know it has been a really busy morning with a number of companies reporting today, so thank you very much for your time and for making yourselves available. Hopefully, you have had the opportunity to see our presentation that we went out with at 7:00 A.M. this morning, and I am sure that there are a number of questions. With that, I will hand over to Chris to kick us off. Yes, good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us. We will get straight into it, as usual. Pop your hand up if you'd like to ask a question. We will start with James. You look like you're in the first in the queue, mate. Go ahead. Good morning. On the results, just had, I guess my main question is on the outperformance target over the base allowed return. I was wondering whether you could firstly just clarify, is that based on the Ofwat leverage assumption? If you can give us any details in terms of what's making up that 1% or more outperformance, that'd be really useful. Thank you. Great. Thanks, James. And morning. Yeah, so look, I'm really pleased that this morning we've been able to provide that guidance. We've deliberately set that up so that we've got a high degree of confidence that we can ensure that we deliver through the AMP. We're guiding to at least 100 basis points outperformance, and the main driver of that is financing outperformance as well as contributions that are coming from ODIs and PCDS and TOTEX. We've set that to ensure that we can deliver as we go through the AMP period. Phil? Yeah, and James, your first question about the leverage assumption, yes, it is on the Ofwat 55% leverage assumption. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, thanks, James. Very efficient. Jenny, your turn. Thanks very much. Two questions, please. Just firstly, on the ODI penalties that you talk about for the current year we're in, can you provide a bit of magnitude in terms of the size that we're talking about in terms of that penalty? Secondly, back to James's question on the at least 100 basis points. I understand the difference between the notional structure of what you're guiding versus your actual financial structure outturn. When you look at your RORI composition in terms of what you've achieved in the past, you've done a lot better, a lot better, especially on financing with that regards, with regards to the 100 basis points. Can you just give us a sense of, you know, and I also note you say, you know, the 100 basis point comes with a high degree of confidence. Can you give us a sense of the level of conservatism that you have here? Presumably, you know, the vast majority of that is going to come from the financing part again, or, you know, could it now this time be real turnaround on TOTEX and ODIs? Thanks. Thanks, Jenny. Look, I'll pick up the first question, and then I'll hand over to Phil. In relation to ODIs for next year, we're not guiding to a specific number. We've set the guidance at 100 basis points and provided clarity on where that contribution is coming from. Obviously, the ODIs build as we go through the AMP period in the context of delivering both the capital program and the contribution that comes as a result of delivering that infrastructure and the improvements that we expect to see in terms of outcome delivery incentives and in terms of PCDs. That gets more progressive as we go through the AMP period. Phil? Yeah, just on the financing, Jenny, as you know, we perform very well on financing and have done historically and expect to continue to do so going forward. I probably will take the opportunity at the capital markets day to get into a lot more detail around the financing position. Suffice to say for today, you know, as we said in the R&S announcement, the out-performance is very much underpinned by financing out-performance, and the main part of it is from financing. We have not given any greater granularity to it. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Chris. Morning, everyone. I have three questions, please. Firstly, on the 100 basis points, a clarifying question as well on assumptions. Does that 100 basis points, I appreciate it is on 55% notional gearing, does it assume any impact or any benefit from inflation at the start of the AMP or expectations for this year being stickier than expected, or is that assuming, is that a real 100 basis points number, particularly as it relates to the financing outperformance? Second question on ODIs, the penalty for FY 2026, I appreciate you are not giving a magnitude, but can you give a bit more color, I guess, as to where it is coming from? Is it a couple of metrics like sewer flooding or CSOs, or is it a bit more broad-based? Can you say anything today that will give us confidence that will turn around to get you to a net reward position on average over the AMP or by the end of the AMP? My last question, going through your results, it looks like there was a change in how Ofwat think about the RORI definition. Phil, can you give a bit more color on that? I guess the key question on that is, is there any economic impact on the change in RORI definition, or is it just a move in the buckets between what's in real RORI and what counts as inflation and how that ties in with tax out-performance? I'd appreciate any color on that, please. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Pab. I think there's three questions there, as you've said, so we'll break them down. I'll take your second one first, and then I'm going to hand over to Phil. In relation to FY 26, you're absolutely right. It's a couple of ODI measures where sewer flooding, etc., CSOs where we're making really strong progress, but we expect progressively as we move through the AMP, we will see those benefits. We are clear we do expect to be in a net reward position over the AMP period, and we've been clear that we see both ODIs and PCDS contributing to that out-performance. We're just not guiding to an overall amount at this moment in time, but they're all contributory factors. As we go through the AMP, we start to see that improvement build through. With Phil, I'll hand over on both the point around inflation assumptions and RORI and tax specifically. Morning, Pab. I was smiling at the reference to a real 100 basis points out-performance. Just to reemphasize, it is at least 100 basis points of out-performance that we are guiding to today. Clearly, you are right, the inflation assumptions really matter. Great question. We have assumed CPI of 2% in our forward forecast effectively. We have used Bank of England technical, sorry, bank technical forecasts in the short term, reverting to the 2% long-term forecast effectively sort of two years out. From that perspective, to the extent that some of the banks are forecasting slightly higher CPI in the near term, that is factored into those assumptions. The sort of last three years, it is 2% effectively. Your sort of question about the RORI definition, yeah, on the 31st of March, Ofwat put out what we call a regulatory accounting guideline. These are the sort of documents that set out how you do your regulatory reporting for the year. A very, very late change. You're right, it's not an economic impact, it's just a presentational one. It doesn't change any cash flows in the context of a determination. What the change was, was basically there was an amount of carried forward value on the tax adjustment. You know we've got sort of 20 or 30 different ex post adjustment mechanisms that go into the process for a price review process. One of those is in relation to tax, and that wasn't factored into the RORI calculation under the previous definitions. What they've asked is for that to get factored in now. That's the change that's happened. It will impact all companies because they've had to issue an update to the regulatory accounting guidelines to sort of ask people to report in a different way. It doesn't change the overall carry forward value that went into the price control and the cash flows. There's no economic impact from that. Thank you. Very clear. Thanks, Pab. Thank you, Pab, for that detailed question on accounting or regulation. John was about to go next, but he just sort of absolutely lost his spot. Now he's back just in the nick of time. Go ahead. Hi, there. Yeah, two questions for me, please. Firstly, how worried are you about the dry weather, particularly the North West? Sorry, my dog's kicking off in the background. You can hear some barking. How worried are you about the dry weather, and what impact will that have potentially on your ODIs? Like I've seen you do really well on CSOs, but less well elsewhere. Do you think we're going to see some TOTEX costs come through? Secondly, on your ODIs outperformance, what sort of assumptions have you put in for OAMS and where you stand relative to your peers? Where I'm coming on this one here is I always like to believe that you're one of the best sector performers out there. If you're only going to be getting 100 basis points of out-performance, with, you're going to get 100 basis points of out-performance and limited from ODIs, why did you not appeal? Good to see a main appeal. Thank you. Okay, I think I'll take both of those questions. In relation to dry weather, yes, we've seen a dry start to the year. We're going to see how things progress. Look, we are prepared for those outcomes. We've been planning well in advance. We have plans to deal with those eventualities. I think it's worth remembering that up here in the North West, we are reservoir-fed. Essentially, although we drain quite quickly, we fill very, very quickly too. It's a very different position than in the South. We've been preparing for those eventualities. We've been moving water around the system. We've invested quite heavily in ensuring that the system is actually connected. We have the ability to move water around the North West, and we're doing that accordingly. We have all the teams sort of stood up and doing the activities that you'd expect us to do. So well prepared and planned for that. I suppose, you know, on a positive note, I am quite reassured in that Phil's going walking in the Lake District over half -term. And actually, having looked at the weather forecast, it looks like it's essentially going to, the skies are going to open. So we all can't wait for that. But we're planning as you'd expect us to do and doing everything that is in accordance with our planning. In relation to ODIs, you know, the guidance that we've set this morning, we've been very clear that it is at least 100 basis points in terms of on top of the base return. We are very clear that, you know, we're working through. We expect that we will be seeing positive returns from both ODIs and PCDS as we move forward. You asked the question, why didn't we appeal? I think we've been very clear around accepting the determination. We look at it in the round, the opportunities in terms of delivering returns, both in terms of financing our performance and rewards that are on the table, but also the fact that we were able to negotiate some company-specific targets on a couple of the things that are an issue towards in the North West, particularly on combined sewer overflows and sewer flooding. It is important that we look at those things in the round in terms of accepting the FD. Sorry, just to come back on the OAM part of it, though, that if the five or six who have appealed get a much better ODI outcome, will you go back to Ofwat and ask for a re-adjustment of your numbers? Look, so I think there's a lot of time to travel yet in terms of where that ultimately lands, essentially, and what those outcomes are of the CMA. We're all watching that avidly, as you'd expect. The answer is yes. You know, we will be having conversations as those sort of outcomes are known in relation to the CMA. Yes, we would absolutely be going back if there were any amendments that were made accordingly. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much, John. Julius, go ahead. Great. Thank you, Peter, for taking my questions. Just two left for me. First of all, can you confirm that you expect also TOTEX to contribute to the 100 basis points or at least 100 basis points out-performance? On TOTEX, could you clarify the level of under-performance that we've seen this year? How much of that is due to the additional investments that you pulled forward? I would be interested to hear your take on the CMA response to the call of evidence that will. Just to hear what your take is on that. Thank you. Okay, thanks for the question. I think there's in a couple of parts, I'll talk about TOTEX in terms of AMP8, and then Phil can sort of talk a little bit about looking back too, and then pick up on CMA. Yes, of course, we expect to see TOTEX out-performance as we go forward. We are focusing extremely heavily in terms of utilization of technology, AI, how we ensure that our overall delivery is smarter, much more efficient than it is today. You'll have hopefully heard me talk on the video this morning. We've got a capital markets day on the 19th of June. We're writing a lot more color about actually how we will be delivering AMP8, how we expect to deliver those efficiencies. An opportunity there to do a little bit more of a deep dive in terms of how we expect some of that TOTEX efficiency to come through. Phil, do you want to pick up in relation to TOTEX for this year? Yeah, in terms of the sort of overall sort of RORI position for this year, I think there's a couple of things going on here. Back in FY 2022, there was a large amount of investment that was announced effectively. That investment fed into years three, four, and five, but predominantly years four and five. What you're observing in the TOTEX numbers is some of the drag from that in years four and five as they work, because this takes quite a while to feed through the supply chain and out and to be implemented. Obviously, the other big driver of RORI is the financing performance. The financing performance was very significant in years three and four. What you've effectively had in year four is a bit of an offset between financing and that TOTEX, whereas in year five, the financing has reverted to more steady state normal levels, and the TOTEX is feeding through from that investment. I think we touched on it in the announcement a little bit and in the script of the slides, but that's the main driver and the main reason. I think you had an additional question in relation to CMA, which is essentially the call for evidence and the response. I mean, obviously, there's a lot of activity going on backwards and forwards. Probably not appropriate for me to sort of comment on that. Obviously, we are watching the process, and we'll be having the relevant conversations at the appropriate time, as you'd expect us to. Okay, thank you very much. Next, we're going to have Mark freshly, and then we'll go to Sarah straight after that. I can see you're holding up your hand, Sarah. Thank you for your patience. Hey, hello, thank you for taking my questions. I have two. Firstly, Phil, the change in infrastructure renewals allocation between P&L and fixed assets or balance sheet, does that impact in any way the credit ratios that are used by the rating agencies for that? Just secondly, on ODIs and the 100 basis points target for RORI out-performance, I mean, ODIs is one of the moving parts within that, a fairly big one. How can you actually guide for ODIs, given that you do not know what Ofwat is going to do with the anchoring or the OAM mechanism, I think they call it? Because clearly, there are quite a range of outcomes, whether they apply what the CMA say to the whole industry, or whether just they apply it to the non-appellants, or because in a way, you are taking a call on other companies. I'm just trying to understand how you can take a call on the 100 basis points. Or is it that you can get 100 basis points without ODIs? It would be good to understand that specific question. Okay, thanks, Mark. Phil, do you want to pick those up? Yeah, okay. Hi, Mark. The IRE change, as you say, effectively operating cash flows will be seen to improve, and capital cash flows will sort of reduce effectively. That is the nature of the change. It will not change debt to RCV or any metrics like that. They will continue to be the same position, a neutral position there. Operating metrics will be improving effectively as a consequence of that. Effectively, the change will take us back more to where we were in an old U.K. GAAP perspective from the accounting. The agencies are very well versed in understanding infrastructure renewals accounting and the impacts of it. We have the opportunity going forward because of our systems and processes to take a more granular approach. That is what we are intending to do starting in FY2026. Sorry to chip in, Phil. What extra balance sheet capacity do you think it might give you, except that it only impacts operating ratios? What extra debt capacity will this accounting change and credit ratio change give you, if any? It won't change debt to RCV as a metric. Economically, that's obviously the key metric that most people focus on. That won't change. Things like interest cover FFO ratios will improve. I'm not seeing it sort of changing really the overall capacity of a balance sheet from that perspective. I'm just seeing it as being a more sensible way of getting the accounting to reflect what's really happening in terms of the underlying asset base. Your second question, Mark, was on RORI, wasn't it? And 100 basis points and the ODIs effectively. Just how can you make the 100 basis points given the ODIs? We just don't know what the CMA conclusion is for OAM. Clearly, there's lots of things we sit here today and don't know about and we have to take a view on. In the context of our position, as we've said, at least 100 basis points, there's a good underpin there in the context of financing performance. Then there's contributions from ODIs, PCDs, and sort of TOTEX. From that perspective, we'll refine our estimates as we go forward. I guess at the start of the AMP, we've got a one way to go from this point forward, really. Okay, great. Thank you for those, Mark. Sarah, over to you. Apologies about the technical hitch. That's all right. No, I apologize. And I apologize secondly, because I'm going to bury a little bit further down this OAM rabbit hole. I just want to tie a bow on it, please, and just clarify two things. Is it your understanding that ultimately we could end up with two peer groups for the OAM? Secondly, from your unique conversations and perspective, does Ofwat and the CMA understand that there's clearly inherent bias in those peer groups if they are separated? Or is it just wait and see? Sorry. We'll tie a bow on this now. It's fine. It's It's fine. In the interest of trying to tie a bow on it, Sarah, I'm probably going to give what sounds like a bit of a politician's answer, to be honest, which is, we don't know. We don't know which way that's going to go. It's still got some way to run. I think we are having conversations as indeed are those companies that are going through the process. I think we're just going to have to wait and see how that materializes. I think there are some things that are more clear, such as PCDs and things like that, where they're not, the same mechanisms are not applied. We're just going to have to wait and see and see how that process runs. I don't feel like I've been able to put a bow on it so much for you, Sarah, as perhaps a little bit of an elastic band, which is a little bit of a, we're going to have to wait and see how the process runs through. Totally understood. Thank you. Thanks, Sarah. Bartek, over to you. Thank you very much and good morning. A couple of things from my side. Just to test how better the current regulatory framework is, if we look at your TOTEX under-performance in AMP7, which was -2.2%, and we sort of apply, if you theoretically applied today's regulatory framework to AMP7, where do you think this TOTEX performance would go? I mean, would it come out of under-performance? Do you think it would completely disappear? Or do you think there will be still some risks of running TOTEX under-performance? I know you are much better protected right now. Second thing, if we look at your bad debt charges, you show the chart, but you have gone down to 1.5%. Of course, you are facing a significant tariffs increase in the water sector in the UK. I just wonder how well in AMP8 Ofwat is protecting you from a potential increase in bad debt charges, and actually what level of bad debt charges is assumed in the final determination? Thank you very much. Okay, thanks, Bartek. Do you want to take TOTEX and I'll cover off bad debt, Phil? Yeah, morning, Bartek. Taking the TOTEX first, I think there's probably three factors that feed into all of this. Firstly, there was an amount of work that was announced back in FY 2022, but it was incremental to the FD and unfunded. That is something that will not be repeated as we go forward in the context of AMP8. That is quite a big different position. Clearly, the second thing that happened going through AMP7 was a very significant spike in inflation and the challenges around all of that as well. I do not think any of us are predicting that to be happening going forward into the AMP8 position. Lastly, the AMP8 position, we benefit significantly from having a much larger TOTEX program. The ability to program a work and programmatically manage that activity creates more opportunity with that larger program than we had with a very small program in AMP7. All of those things together give us a lot more confidence around AMP8 performance on TOTEX. In relation to your question that you asked on bad debt, the way that it is sort of covered within the mechanism is it aligns or it integrates into the retail cost to serve. What you can see, I think, on the graph that we showed this morning is that our bad debt charge as a% has been significantly reduced over both this AMP and the previous AMP. The way that it reflects through is as an allowance from a% of revenue. We feel we're well placed because we've continued to see improvements on that bad debt performance, both in terms of the processes that we have in place in terms of managing credit, but also the benefits that we've put in place in relation to affordability support. We're now able to help one in six customers, GBP 525 million worth of additional support that is there. We feel that we're well placed. Actually, our early signs having gone through that sort of first billing period with the new bill increases is that credit collections have held up exceptionally well, which is really pleasing to see. I think that's a reflection of the investment that we've made both in technology and process and capability, but also the additional affordability support that's on the table too. At the same time, we're actively working with government because there is great progress being made on a national social tariff, which United Utilities would be a beneficiary of. Again, we see that as an opportunity as we go through the AMP. May I just rephrase question one? Because you mentioned those three factors impacting your TOTEX under-performance. Now, if we were to apply today's regulatory framework to AMP7, do you think the second factor, this macro impact, will be absolutely eliminated, or do you think there will be still some? I mean, I guess there is much more protection right now, but I just wonder if this is now, we're talking about full protection. This TOTEX underperformance coming from inflation, material cost increases will completely disappear, or still not? How would you see it? Sort of, it's probably quite, there's definitely sort of better protections with things like the power mechanism for sort of costs, etc., in AMP8 than there was in AMP7. Clearly, there still remains a lot of residual risk in the programs more generally and Ofwat has the cost sharing mechanisms in place to support that. I don't see it making AMP8's TOTEX delivery risk-free, if that's the question. I think the risks are still there. Clearly, we're in a very strong position going into that for three factors that are called out. That's what I see being different from AMP7 stepping into AMP8. I think just to add to what Phil said, I think what we have seen is a change from Ofwat in terms of that cost sharing mechanism, particularly in terms of enhancement expenditure in terms of 60-40. I think that gives us additional protection. I think what you're going to see when you hopefully can make it to the capital markets day is what we've been doing in terms of making sure that we're driving standardized solutions design. We're making sure that we are focused on delivering within the TOTEX envelope that we have and the new capability that we've brought in the team to make sure that we can do that at scale. We will provide a little bit more color to that on the capital markets day on the 19th of June too. Thank you. Terrific. Last but not least, Dom, you've got a follow-up. Hi. Yes, can't be last, surely. Yeah, two questions for me, please. Last question about the Water Framework Directive, which clearly sets the investment permitting the licenses. And as I understand it, the one that we adopted from the EU expires in 2027, and it's fairly inflexible. 2027 is not far away. Could you sort of give us some color as to what you expect it to be replaced with and what sort of constraints and also opportunities it could provide to you, particularly in, I guess, in more discretion for regulation, which I think was kind of discussed by DEFRA and maybe the open wastewater directive. Leaning on from that, one of the areas that I think is increasingly debated is, do the water companies and particularly yourselves, are you in full control? Is the regulator fully understanding the state of your asset health and whether or not the capital maintenance requirements are needing to probably ramp up again as focus sort of shifts to that place? Thank you. Right. Okay, thanks, Dom. Look, in terms of the WFD and 2027, I think you'll find that this is going to be covered as part of Sir John Conliff's review. I think you're right. It's a couple of years ago. We're expecting Sir John's recommendations at the end of May with his final recommendations landing just before recess. I think both the sort of WFD framework and also those broader enhancement frameworks, I think will be covered within that, both in terms of the WINIP objectives and water resource management plans and drainage management plans as well. I think there has been a huge amount of focus within DEFRA about the WFD in 2027 and therefore what we'll potentially need to adjust and change, because you're right, that's not far away. I think we have not probably got long to wait until we get some clarity on that specific position. In relation to asset health, I think it was very clear we made quite a lot of representations through our price review process. I think both in terms of what Ofwat have said and have put into this AMP8 period as an area of focus that they are going to be looking at as we go through. I think they have even talked about the word re-opener is a word that they have used is around asset health. Again, I think there will be a lot of recommendations in Sir John's outcome, which is about the understanding of asset health, the need for a consistent standard across the U.K., and to your point, Dom, investment in those based assets. Now, what I'd say from a UU perspective is we've got quite a mature asset health framework in terms of the work that we have been doing, and we've been feeding that in. I think there is a recognition with whoever you speak to, whether that's government, regulators, or companies, is that there needs to be a much greater level of investment in base asset health, not just enhancement expenditure too. I think that's going to be a core feature of AMP9. I suppose some of the early indications are that may not just wait till AMP9. That's probably something that we need to be getting going on now, certainly in terms of that assessment piece. I think it's going to form a key part of Sir John's recommendations that, like I say, we expect at the end of May. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, everyone, for joining. Lou and Phil, I'll pass back to you. Brilliant. Thanks, Chris. I suppose, like I said at the beginning, I know it's a really busy time. I really appreciate that you're coming online this morning. I suppose just to sum up some key points that I made this morning, we are a top quartile performer. We've got a really strong track record. Financially, we're in a really strong position. We're gearing at midpoint of our range. More importantly, we're fully equity funded as we go into AMP8. Lastly, we think our returns guidance, as well as the growth we're expecting to see over the next five years and beyond, provides that sort of picture and clarity that you've been looking for. We hope to see you on the 19th of June so that we can provide more detail and more color about how we're going to deliver this plan. I suppose lastly, just a bit of a thank you to the team here at UU. It's great to be leading such a committed team, great levels of engagement and commitment, and everybody's focused on delivering the outcomes that everybody wants to see. Thank you for joining us this morning. I look forward to seeing those of you I'm meeting over the next couple of days, and we look forward to seeing you on the 19th of June. Thank you. Thank you.