Good morning, everybody. Thank you for taking the time to join us today. As you may have seen from our press release this morning, we delivered strong financial results in the first half, and we made further operational and strategic progress. Underlying revenue growth was 7%. Underlying adjusted operating profit growth was 9%. Adjusted earnings per share growth was 10% at constant currency, and we have announced a 7% increase in the pound sterling interim dividend. Group underlying revenue growth of 7% was in line with full year 2024, but with a higher quality growth profile. Risk with continued strong growth, STM with continued good growth and developing momentum, Legal with a further step-up in growth and Exhibitions now established at strong ongoing growth. On this chart, you can see the first half growth rate for each business area as well as the relative sizes of the segments within each of them. You can also see that we're showing print and print-related revenue separately here. I'll come back to that later. In Risk, underlying revenue growth was 8%, in line with full year 2024 and underlying adjusted operating profit growth was 9%. Strong growth continues to be driven across segments by the development and rollout of higher value-add, deeply embedded AI- enabled analytics and decision tools with over 90% of divisional revenues coming from machine-to-machine interactions. Business Services continues to be driven by financial crime compliance and digital fraud and identity solutions and strong new sales. Insurance continues to be driven by further expansion of solution sets, positive market factors and strong new sales. For the full year, we expect continued strong underlying revenue growth with underlying adjusted operating profit growth slightly exceeding underlying revenue growth. In STM, now excluding print and print related, underlying revenue growth was 5%, in…

Thank you, Erik. Good morning, everyone. Let me start by providing more detail on the group financials. As Erik said, underlying revenue growth was 7% with underlying adjusted operating profit growth ahead of that at 9%. As a result, the adjusted operating margin improved to 34.8%. The strong operating results flowed through to adjusted earnings per share, which at constant currency increased by 10%. Cash conversion was also very strong at 100%, and leverage was 2.2x, up from the year-end, reflecting the first half bias of dividend payments and the buyback. Given the strong financial performance, we are increasing the interim dividend by 7% to 19.5p per share. We spent GBP 262 million on 3 acquisitions in the first half, and we deployed GBP 1 billion after the planned GBP 1.5 billion for share buybacks for this year. Looking at revenue, you can see here how all 4 business areas contributed to the overall 7% underlying growth. As you've heard from Erik, we are now managing the distribution of print versions of our content separately. Consistent with this, we have separated out the reporting of print and print-related revenues and profits, as you see here. Prior period revenue and profit splits have been restated, and you'll find reconciliations to the prior half year and full year numbers in the press release. We've been proactively reducing our involvement in all print-related activities for many years, and we've stepped this up in the past 18 months through outsourcing, joint ventures and targeted asset disposals. As a result of these actions, we reduced our remaining exposure to print by another step in the first half of 2025. Total group revenue growth at constant currency was 4%. After portfolio effects in Risk, Legal and Exhibitions and after the step- down in print exposure that…

Thank you, Nick. Just to summarize what we have covered this morning. In the first half, we delivered strong financial results, and we made further operational and strategic progress. We continue to see positive momentum across the group, and we expect another year of strong underlying growth in revenue and adjusted operating profit as well as strong growth in adjusted earnings per share on a constant currency basis. With that, I think we're ready to go to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question today comes from Adam Berlin from UBS.

I've got three, if that's okay. My first question is there's been a lot of press around the U.S. changes and the National Institute of Health, in particular, over the last few months. And people have been focused on the negative of that. But I wanted to ask a more positive question, which is on the 1st of July, the NIH changed their open access policy. So any research they fund has to be published open access, and they were willing to fund APCs in order to make that a reality. And they're the first U.S. funding body to do this. Have you seen through July any additional revenues from APCs as that policy changed? And can that be a positive source of momentum in STM? That's my first question. The second question is also over the last few months, you made the decision to partner with Harvey in the Legal side to let them access your legal databases. Can you talk a little bit about the rationale for that decision and what you're hoping to achieve through that partnership? And then thirdly, you noted the better free cash flow conversion, which was, I think, related to a better working capital in the first half than last year. Is that connected at all with the change in the print segmentation? Or is that just a one-off effect and there's no kind of structural change to working capital and cash flow conversion?

Okay. I'm going to hand the third one to Nick, but let me start with the first two. As you know, we've been in this primary research publishing business, parts of our company, for over 200 years. And we've seen many changes in policies and announcement from different bodies around the world, and we will continue to see them going forward. When it comes to how the research publication model is funded and how people pay for it, we are here to be a service provider, and we're perfectly happy to provide any of our services and any payment model that our customers would like. And in this case, like most other changes, any one institution, any one location changing it slightly is not likely to have any impact on the trajectory that we are seeing. I mean we are seeing very strong article submissions across the board in Elsevier at the moment. We're continuing to see strong new sales and strong renewals. And I think this business has very positive momentum, but I don't think it's directly related to any one of these announcements of the one you mentioned being one. On the second question on our partnership with Harvey. The way we see everything we do in this company is tying it back to our #1 strategic objective, which is the organic development of increasingly sophisticated analytics and decision tools that add more value to our customers. That's what we try to do. But the main focus is on the issue of value to the customers. So if we see that something we are doing well and organic development we are doing that adds real value to the customer, if we see that the customer can actually get more value from those, if we have a slightly different…

Yes, Adam, no material impact from what we're doing with print or print related as far as working capital is concerned. As you say, the cash conversion in the first half was strong at 100% in the high 90s is perhaps more normal, but it's just because of the exact timing of receipts and payments around the 30th of June. It's just the normal ebbs and flows.

Your next question comes from George Webb from Morgan Stanley.

I have three, please, and a couple of semi follow-ups to that. Just back on to the Harvey topic and digging into one of the parts there to the extent you can. As part of that announcement, there was a note that you'd kind of co-collaborate on some new workflow tools together. Could you kind of help us understand how you think about monetizing co-created products with someone like Harvey? Whose platform would that sit on? Would that sit within Lexis+ AI or Harvey? I wasn't too clear on that. Secondly, just given the resegmentation of print, could you add any color as to whether the magnitude of the print decline was similar across both STM and Legal? Or was one materially larger than the other? And then just lastly, with regards to where you're selling solutions to the U.S. government or the agencies across the entire business, whether that's Risk or subscriptions in STM and Legal. Have you seen anything notable in the first half in terms of shifting demand patterns? Or has that all been quite consistent with last year?

Again, I'll take the first, and then I'll hand the second over to Nick here. On Harvey, we are going to explore many different ways to figure out how to add value to our customers. And as you might already know, we have hundreds of different specific use cases that we're developing today organically. We picked a couple to work collaboratively as a pilot to see how we could do it if we work together. The concept is that we would share in it, we work in it, we come up with the best technological way to do it as we go along and see how that works for us and for them relative to all the other hundreds of use cases that we are working on. So I would see it pretty much as exploring a pilot way of co-developing solutions for specific use cases. And we will see how that goes and how we can do that going forward if we can then form a model. We're not trying to now declare the answer or declare a model, but we're exploring this in a couple of very specific use cases that we think we can both bring knowledge to add value to the customer. And a second one...

Yes. So George, I mean, it is both STM and Legal seeing the reduction of the step down in print. I think for this particular period, the proactive steps we've taken perhaps have a little bit more effect in STM than Legal, but I mean, it is across both of them. And of course, our focus is really on the retention of the profit, you can expect that to decline, as I said earlier, over time as print declines, but the revenue could step down more quickly as we take these proactive steps, but it is across both.

And on government, as I think we all know, there is a lot of media coverage coming about government initiatives or changes or potential changes in U.S. federal spending and initiatives. For us, what actually has happened on the ground has not been materially different so far this year from previous years. That might change, of course. But at the moment, your question was, have we seen it? Has it happened in the first half? No, it's been very similar.

That's really helpful. Can I just ask one final question just on the Exhibitions margin. It was clearly very strong in the first half, and I think the release called out a little bit of seasonality. Just when we think to the full year margin, is there any guidance you can give around either how you'd expect the cost base to be growing year-over-year or with regards to maybe potential like rough magnitude of margin expansion? Anything around that would be quite helpful.

Yes, George, you're absolutely right. The full year margins in Exhibitions are typically anything up to 5 points lower than for the first half, and that is just the seasonality. So for the full year, we would expect a decent improvement in margin, perhaps not quite as much as we had in the first half, but there'll still be benefit from those disposals as well as the underlying performance. So something of a similar order of magnitude.

Your next question comes from Lisa Yang from Goldman Sachs.

I have a few questions as well. Just in Legal, obviously, we saw the improving momentum step-up in growth versus last year. Do you think now with printing being carved out, we could see a further acceleration to potentially 10% by the end of the year? Could that be possible? And could you also give us a bit more detail in Legal, so the share of revenue now coming from analytics and how that has improved versus last year? And what's the percentage of customers when the contracts up for renewal, what percentage of their customers actually now upgrade to analytics, thanks to obviously the new AI products? That's the first question for Legal. In STM as well, obviously, you mentioned developing the growth momentum in that division. Similar question, do you think we could see an acceleration towards that 6% potentially by the end of the year? And what's the actual level of uptake of AI products amongst your customers? I appreciate it's still early days. And the third one, just on Exhibitions. So you mentioned Exhibitions established as sort of -- that's a new level. Is that 8% basically a new level of growth we should be expecting going forward? Because it does look like you mentioned this is -- it sounds like it's a new level. So just wanted to confirm that. And how much of that is pricing versus volume? Anything you can share in terms of change of latest demand, rebooking trends or booking? Any additional color would be helpful.

Yes, I'll cover the first two, and then I hand the third over to Nick again. Legal, the growth rate, as you said, has now accelerated again and took another step up to 9% on the new basis, which is the real ongoing basis going forward. And you're asking, is this likely to pick up to 10% by the end of the year. The way I would look at it is we have very positive momentum in Legal with new product introductions, with customer reception of those products, with the value add that we can demonstrate and see and with the rollout of those products across the U.S. and internationally. So we are seeing very positive momentum and strong new sales. But you have to remember that Legal is now over 80% subscription and that the average subscription length is 3 years. And even commercially oriented law firms, they look at it seriously, they consider it and they try it. So I think that the momentum we have will continue to come through. It's their objective to continue to increase their growth rate over the next few years. And their objective is to continue to do that, continue to add more value and to grow faster, to continue to improve their growth trajectory. I don't believe it's realistic for that to come through this year. We would, of course, hope that it comes through soon, but I'm also not sure that you can expect it to pick up 1 percentage point every year forever. But their objective is to grow faster, unlikely to be this year. Not impossible that we can do it soon thereafter, but their objective is focused on the next few years, not on any 1 year or being able to round up in any one specific…

And Lisa, your last question on Exhibitions. Obviously, we've now had 2 full half years where there's been no distortion from the COVID recovery. And so I think if you look back at those last 12 months and do the math, we've had growth of about 7% to 8% in that period. Obviously, this isn't a subscription business, and so there's going to be a bit more variability, but that's the sort of level -- the ongoing growth level strong that we're referring to. And clearly that's higher than it was pre-pandemic as a business. What's driving that is the value we're providing to customers. Obviously, we're expanding events wherever we can, attracting new exhibitors, doing more for existing exhibitors, including through the digital offerings, and that's what's really driving that growth.

Your next question comes from Nick Dempsey from Barclays.

I have three questions left. So first of all, if we look at the absolute numbers for the new print line, that was down 21%. Can you at least indicate how much of that fall year-on-year related to disposals? I understand that of the rest, we've now got to think about perhaps an underlying amount and then chunks that are going into JVs, and I can see why you want to strip that out of organic. But can you at least say how much related to disposals? Second question, in risk, when you look at the shopping events data that LexisNexis publishes, the comps become a lot tougher from right about here. So will that have a negative impact on the insurance growth in the second half? And if so, do you have other factors in the division that can balance that out? And then the third question, in terms of the potential cost and funding pressures on U.S. universities, I know you won't have started renewal conversations for 2026 probably yet. But have you had any conversations with U.S. universities where they are already suggesting that when they do come to renew, they will have to reduce their spend one way or another?

So Nick, I'll take the first one on the print. Clearly, our focus is on the value here and what we need to do with customers in terms of meeting their needs for print products and then value for us, which is all about the profitability. So it's not really about the revenue. And so when we're doing things like outsourcing, it's not a disposal, but that you're going to see times when the revenue steps down in larger steps, and that's certainly true in the first half of this year. But I think if you focus more on the profit and value, which is what we're doing, and that's more representative of the strategy going forward. Yes. I think just -- I mean, I said in the presentation, if you get the normal rate of decline in print that we've had historically, that's high single digit. And if you're modeling the profit, I would certainly look at that. And then the revenue is sometimes the bigger step, but hard to forecast.

And I'll cover the Risk question here. In Risk, the main driver of the long-term strong growth rate in Risk is the development and rollout of new higher value-add products. And as you know, we develop them, we test them, we see that they add value, and then they take typically up to 5 years to fully roll out and become fully installed and used in the marketplace. Therefore, we have pretty high visibility into the main driver of this business is of product pipeline, product development and rollout. Yes, there is some additional factors that come from the marketplace, but the main driver is the higher value-add products and the rollout. At this moment in time, we can see that both the big areas in Risk, Business Services and Insurance, are growing strongly at the core at the current run rate. And their product pipelines are strong and being rolled out strongly. And we're having strong new sales compared to prior year in both of those big areas. Yes, as you said, the shopping patterns last year were high and they were high -- well, they were high for a long time, but they were particularly high in the summer and fall months. That's not directly translating into something that's the main driver of the business. It's a small contributor in terms of positive market factors, but there are also positive market factors such as insurance price changes, policy price changes, cost of claims and so on that impact how insurance companies price and market, which can encourage switching and switching sometimes is correlated to the shopping volume. Sometimes it's not exactly. So we think that the market factors are going to continue to be good, not perhaps not as strong in shopping activity as last year in terms of growth rate, but it's still growing. It's still higher. And we believe that Risk -- both Insurance and Business Services are going to continue to do very well and continue to grow strongly this year, in line with historical trends. On the STM side, any given year over the last 200 years we've been involved in this, there are always parts of the world where there are institutions that are facing particularly challenging budget situations. And sometimes it's in several places, sometimes it's in some pockets. We don't believe that any one particular year historically has had any significant impact on the outlook or the growth rate for our STM division as a whole. We will always work with our customers. We are in a service business. We will make sure that we figure out a way for them to get the value that they would like to have from us within their actual budget constraints, the way they will turn out to be in any one year. But it hasn't historically impacted the rate of growth in that division in any significant way, and we don't expect that, that will be the case this time either.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Henry Hayden with Rothschild & Co Redburn.

Three questions, if I may. So the first is in Legal. I was curious as to what you're hearing from clients in terms of the state of demand. I mean, from where we sit, demand growth in legal industry seems to have been strong into the end of the year and particularly through H1. But wondering if you're picking up on more caution around that being tariff-related pull forward or if there's an expectation of that tempering. The second question is on Exhibitions. I was hoping you could offer some color on the incremental growth and margin contribution as you kind of increasingly ramp up the digital tools mix in the business? And how should we think about the adoption curve for those? And then finally, on the balance sheet, I was wondering how you're thinking about leverage vis-a-vis future M&A? Are you open to larger transactions at this stage given capacity? Or are you focusing on bolt-ons? And in the event of the former, would you be willing to go above the top end of that target leverage range kind of as you did with ChoicePoint in 2008? .

I'll cover the first, and I'll hand -- ask Nick to cover the next two here. I think your comments about what you're hearing on the legal industry are probably accurate. But given what is going on for us today in the legal industry, which is the significant value-add opportunity that we see to help our customers differently and the excitement we're seeing from our customer base about that new opportunity, we are focusing all our energy on how we can add more value to our customers through the new tools, the rollout of those, the new development of those, the development of additional use cases and doing them faster that I believe that value uplift that we can give our customers is so much more important for us as a service provider than any actual movement in the rate of growth in the industry itself. So that's where we are focused now. And I believe that you're going to continue to see increased penetration and increased take-up of these new higher value-add tools and platforms from us regardless of what happens to the exact trends in the industry itself.

And Henry, your question on Exhibitions growth, it's obviously coming from the overall value that we're offering to clients and expanding the event portfolio, doing more for the -- attracting new exhibitors and doing more for the existing ones. The digital offerings are very much part of that and they're very much part of the overall value that we're adding -- increasing all the time. They're not always priced separately. I mean they're part of the overall -- it's part of what is attracting exhibitors to come back and renew or take more space and so on. So it's hard to separate out, but it's obviously an important part of the overall growth dynamic. And your final question on leverage and acquisition. As you know, our primary focus is on the organic development of the business, and there's lots and lots of opportunities in front of us and you can -- we're talking about today that we're going after. We will make acquisitions where we see that they can enhance and accelerate the organic development. They do need to fit with what we're doing and fit in with that organic development, but we will make those. Obviously, what comes up in any one particular period can vary and it is a variable in our overall cash flows. But the leverage range is designed to accommodate that. So 2 to 2.5x is our typical range. We can sometimes go below that if acquisitions are limited for a period. We could go above that, of course, and quickly get it back in range because of the high cash generation. And so if it were to happen that 2 or 3 larger acquisitions [indiscernible] in one period, we've got plenty of room to do that. But the primary focus, I'd say, is on the organic development.

Your next question comes from Steve Liechti from Deutsche Bank.

I've got three as well, please, sorry. Just first one, event forward booking trends in Exhibitions. Just obviously what's going on in the world right now. Any changes that you're seeing by region or kind of vertical that you can call out? That's the first question. The second two questions, just checking my math. So on your group like-for-like, it's 7% on an ex print basis. If I take the delta in print, which is sort of the difference between the 2 first half figures, that's GBP 50 million of fall. And if I do that as a percentage of last year's revenue, that's 1 percentage point. So my question really is, why is your group like-for-like on the new basis, not 8%? Why is it 7%? And then the second question, just on Legal and Academic specifically like-for-likes, what would those like-for-likes have been on the old basis? I'm getting about just trying to work backwards about 1 percentage point. Is that about the right call for those 2 figures?

I'm going to ask Nick to cover all of those.

So Steve, the Exhibitions forward bookings, as you say, obviously, it varies between sectors and between geographies, but we've got a diverse portfolio, and I don't think there's anything in particular I'd call out. We're trending similarly. So I wouldn't pick out anything for you. The business is in good shape, and it's all about the value we're providing and what we're doing rather than worrying too much about the overall economic dynamics. Your question on the impact of print and the 7%, et cetera. Remember that the first half drop in revenue is -- I mean, it's partly a little bit of currency, of course. It's also disposals. It would not have all been in underlying, which is why we say that the -- if we had managed the group -- reported and managed the group on the same basis as last year, then the group total would have been 7%, including print, and it's obviously 7% excluding print, as you can see from these actual numbers. If you do that same logic for STM and Legal specifically, if we manage and reported on the same basis, as last time, which I think aligns with your math, STM would have been 4% in this period, in line with full year 2024. Legal would have been 8%. So we have seen the step-up from that to the 9%. So on a like-for-like basis, that's effectively a 1-point improvement in Legal and obviously, 2 points on the reported basis. But yes. Your math is pretty good.

That does conclude our question-and-answer session. I'd now like to turn the conference back over for any closing remarks.

Well, thank you for taking the time to join us this morning. I look forward to talking to you again soon. Thank you.