 So, thanks very much Keith. So I'll be taking you all through these four items starting by recapping the overall picture of our six carbon budget advice that you may well have seen Christa presenting last week. Then I'll pass to our industry analyst Cheryl McKenzie who will present our approach to this analysis. Then I'll run you through the detail of what's in our sixth carbon budget balance pathway and finally the policies required to actually enable this ambitious pathway. So let's start with a with a recap of the overall path. So the chart here sets out our recommended path for emissions towards that net zero goal in 2050 as indicated by the dotted line here. It also contains the two ultimate recommendations of our analysis and that's our advice on the sixth carbon budget level and advice on the level of the UK's 2030 NBC. So firstly we recommended that the UK should submit an NBC requiring at least a 68 percent reduction in territorial emissions from 1990 to 2030 and that's a really ambitious goal and the government have accepted this ahead. They've accepted this on last week ahead of last Saturday's climate ambitions. So secondly we recommended that the sixth carbon budget should be set at 965 megatons implying a 78 percent reduction from 1990 to 2035. So just that's really ambitious just just remember that until last year the 2050 target was for an 80 percent reduction. So we expect the government to assess our recommendations before before legislating on the sixth carbon budget level next year. Before moving on I'll just highlight here the kind of inverted S shape of the path reflecting acceleration in decarbonisation in the early 2030s. So that's the overall pathway but now I want to dive into the detail on manufacturing construction and fossil fuel supply and I'm going to hand over to Cheryl McKenzie our industry analyst to explain the approach we've taken to develop our pathways in these sectors. Thanks Haran. So we take a bottom up approach to our analysis which allows us to draw out the detail of each of the sectors and we develop pathways for all of these sectors to underpin the overall pathway that I've just set out. For this session we're focusing on the pathway for the manufacturing and construction and fuel supply sectors which are the top two wedges on this graph. This is what we formally referred to as industry we're shifting away from the term industry now to allow us to articulate the distinct issues for manufacturing and fuel supply. All of the 2019 emissions in fuel supply shown in this graph are from fossil fuel supply and we're going to cover decarbonisation of these emissions in this session. Other aspects of fuel supply particularly the development of hydrogen and bioenergy fuel supplies were covered in yesterday's energy sector deep dive. So next I want to explain how we develop the pathways for manufacturing construction and fossil fuel supply. So we started by developing three exploratory scenarios. These describe different potential future worlds. So widespread engagement is a world with further behaviour change and has a high level of resource efficiency driven by consumer and business engagement. Most businesses in this world follow incentives and supply chains develop faster. In the widespread innovation scenario fuel switching and CCS show big reductions in electricity and electrolysis costs and higher CCS capture rates. Resource efficiency is a moderate to high level which is driven by innovative techniques and business models. The headwind scenario has moderate levels of resource efficiency and businesses that are resistant to change and prefer to retrofit rather than refit despite incentives. There are also lower cost reductions in this scenario. Tailwinds takes our most optimistic assumptions about the future world. This scenario reaches net zero by 2042 across the economy. Our balanced net zero pathway is a pathway that underpins the six carbon budget. It takes a balanced mix of assumptions about the future and keeps our options open. The balanced pathway is consistent with climate science and our international circumstances and we need deep productions to keep that 1.5 degrees in play. It's especially important going into 2021 with the UK leading COP26. So now I hand back over to Aaron to go through the changes that are involved in our balanced pathway. So thanks very much Cheryl. So Cheryl's introduced you to the balanced net zero pathway and I'd like to take you through the detail of what it can contains and as Cheryl described, we'll split this between manufacturing and construction firstly and fossil fuel supply and treat those two. So first manufacturing and construction and here's the balanced net zero pathway for this sector in one graph. It shows a series of measures reducing emissions from the baseline down to at the top and then down to the balanced pathway that's running along the bottom. It requires manufacturing and construction emissions to be reduced by 70% by 2035 and by 90% by 2040 and that's from 2018 levels. That's based on fuel switching, CCS and improvements to resource and energy efficiency. So this pathway has faster reductions than the pathway underpinning our fifth carbon budget advice that we set in 2015 five years ago. This reflects substantially improved evidence and also the shift to an economy wide net zero target from the previous 80% target. If you include the negative emissions that come as a result of BEX that's partially shown in the light green wedge here, then the pathway to in fact reach net zero overall, which is pretty impressive for a sector that's often been referred to as hard to carbonize. So let me take you through the pathway and let me start with the early years and during the 2030s there's increasing implementation of new technologies, policy, resource efficient approaches, the development of infrastructure and supply chains. Improvements in resource energy efficiency lead to the largest reductions in the early 2020s with smaller contribution from electrification, biofuel use and material substitution. And then fuel switching CCS deployment really scale up from 2025. So now let me take you a bit further towards 2050 and go through each of the wedges. And to do this I'll pop up this chart and show you how the different wedges of abatement are spread across the different industrial sectors. So firstly resource efficiency. Resource efficiency abatement gradually increases from 2020 to 2035. Clacattery includes a range of different measures including reducing the amount of material used by optimizing designs, for example in buildings, increasing recycling and reuse, including in construction, increasing the longevity of products, for example using electronics for the longer, increasing product utilization and sharing such through car clubs and sharing leather equipment. And these measures we can see from the right hand chart reduce emissions most from steel and cement sectors and this analysis is based on work by the University of Leeds. Next is energy efficiency which includes heat recovery, process up and equipment upgrades and integration and clustering. The paper sector sees the highest fraction of abatement from energy efficiency as a result of clustering to reuse waste heat from other industrial sites. This analysis is based on the 2015 joint industry and government roadmap to 2015. Next is the two large wedges also the largest sources of fuel switching that's electrification and hydrogen. We've done some really detailed work on these options as well as the CCS measures with with element energy. Electrification includes measures such as electric boilers, electric arc furnaces, electric dryers and a range of other other different measures. Some electrification options are introduced in the early 2020s and due to high commercial readiness and some electrification measures involve scrapping existing assets for the end of their expected lifespan. This reflects preferable economics over the alternative options and the inability to retrofit some electrification options. Hydrogen measures include hydrogen boilers, generators, mobile machinery and kilns. Our latest evidence suggests these measures can typically be retrofitted at limiting the need to wait for a replacement cycle or the need to scrap assets before hitting these measures. In our scenario there is substantial electrification in food and drink, paper, vehicles, steel and chemicals and there's substantial hydrogen and off-road mobile machinery and chemicals. We expect the competition between electrification and hydrogen is likely to be close so there's a lot of uncertainty about which of these technologies will ultimately win in the future and our exploratory scenarios that shall set out more of these potential different future worlds if you want to dig into those a little bit further. What's key here is that developing both options will be important. Then finally there is bioenergy use and CCS. Bioenergy use is prioritized for sectors using bioenergy already such as cement and pulp or those with the potential to fit CCS. CCS is applied to a bottom wedge, is applied to fertiliser plants, half of the UK's integrated steelwork capacity and processes where it's the only deep to carbonisation option available. This includes cement and lime and ethylene production. That's manufacturing and construction in quite some detail. Now I want to move on to fossil fuel supply. The emissions from fossil fuel supply include those directly from oil refining, oil and gas production, oil and gas processing terminals, as well as leaks of methane from the gas transmission and distribution networks. Emissions in this sector are expected to see a substantial drop. Even without climate policy as a result of declining North Sea oil and gas reserves. That's why you see here the baseline, which is a baseline without any climate action, has a decline in emissions anyway. Including this aspect and the abatement measures, our balanced pathway requires fossil fuel supply emissions to be reduced by 75% and by 2035, that's from 2018 levels. And there's five major measures that I'd like to flag here. So the first is actually a measure that's outside of the sector, which is a shift away from using petroleum mainly in transport. And so that's this top red wedge here. This reduces emissions from oil refining. Then second in yellow is electrification. In our balanced pathway, this includes electrifying oil and gas platforms by connecting them to the electricity grid or to offshore renewables. Then next is the pale green wedge, which is reducing methane flowering and venting also from offshore platforms. And then similarly is the light blue wedge, which is reducing leaks of methane from the gas transmission and distribution networks by improving monitoring of potential leaks and repairing the leaks. Then finally CCS, which in this pathway is predominantly applied to oil refineries. So by 2050, very close to zero emissions. And in fact, the largest remaining source for emissions is from methane leaking from old closed coal mines. So having gone through those pathways in quite some detail, I want to take a moment to reflect on their contribution to the carbon budget through this chart. And so it shows what's changed since our fifth carbon budget advice in 2015. So the red line along the top here is the pathway that underpinned our fifth carbon budget advice. And the black line is our new balanced pathway on the path to net zero as opposed to the 80% reduction, which is where the fifth carbon budget pathway ended. What we can see here is that the greatest change between the two pathways is from what we formerly called industry, manufacturing, construction and fossil fuel supply sectors. And I think this is a really important point. As a result of net zero and the Paris agreement, we really need to reset our expectations of industry to carbonisation. I guess it's more I think things have shifted more so than in any other sector. And I guess this really means that it's not a case of decarbonising industry last anymore. It's decarbonising alongside other sectors and indeed faster than one or two. So I'd just like to cover a few other aspects of the balanced pathway. Firstly, geography, infrastructure and skills and then on the next slide costs. So the map that just pops up here shows the distribution of deep decarbonisation measures in larger manufacturing sites. We don't have absolutely all sites on this map here. So the location of sites can affect the decarbonisation option that they choose. At dispersed sites, our next step suggests that electrification has an advantage over hyper-hydrogen. You can see the bigger cluster areas in here. And the industrial clusters are where infrastructure for CCS and hydrogen are first deployed in our balanced pathway, starting from 2025 in some clusters. Also on infrastructure, there's also a need to increase electricity network capacity around some newly electrifying sites. And that's spread across the UK. Smaller and more dispersed sites tend, but not always, tend to decarbonise slightly later. This can be due to the costs of smaller sites, attitudes and infrastructure availability. Then finally is remove along the balanced pathway. The pathway has more workers acquiring skills to implement low carbon measures and the supply of necessary technologies and equipment grows and the availability of finance increases. So the final aspect of the pathway I'd like to cover is the cost, starting with manufacturing and construction. So the kind of Louis purple line here reflects the additional capital expenditure required for fuel switching and CCS measures in the pathway. So the more expensive measures. And the red line here reflects the additional operating expenditure for the same measures. And then the kind of orange line is the sum of these two is a fairly balanced split between operating and capital expenditure, which differs from the story in many of the other sectors of the economy. And based on these costs, we estimate the cost to the exchequer. If it were to fund fuel switching and CCS in manufacturing and construction in a way that protects sub-sectors at risk of carbon leakage, it could be up to £2 billion a year in 2030, perhaps a little less. So then adding in this line here for the net savings of energy and resource efficiency is actually a slight drop in the overall cost for decarbonising, manufacturing and construction. And then here I've added in at the bottom this yellow line, which represents the cost of decarbonising fossil fuel supply, which is closer to around £1 billion a year. So adding all of this together, manufacturing, construction and fossil fuel supply, the total cost peaks at around £5.5 billion in the late 2030s. So I've run you through the pathway, but I haven't yet said much about how this may be enabled. And we've spent quite some time thinking about this. And alongside our sixth carbon budget advice, we've also published three other reports, one by the Energy Systems Catapult, that's on policies to manage carbon leakage, one by the University of Leeds in CREDS, the CREDS Research Consortium on industrial decarbonisation policy, and one note on product standards from an independent consultant Terry Wills, who is working with us. We also gathered a steering group to guide this work. So let me start with the area that I think we've looked at the hardest, which is about maintaining competitiveness of industry while decarbonising. This is a really important issue for the committee. And yet the committee's position is absolutely still that the design of policies to reduce UK manufacturing emissions must ensure that it does not damage UK manufacturers competitiveness and drive manufacturing overseas. This would wouldn't reduce global emissions and would harm the UK economy. So I'm going to go through and sort of highlight some of our key policy recommendations. So in terms of policy mechanisms to enable this goal of maintaining competitiveness and also decarbonising, I think that in the near term that taxpayer funding should be used to support deep decarbonisation in manufacturing sectors at risk of carbon leakage. This maps onto the £2 billion figure in 2030 that I trialled in the previous slide. This support can provide kind of dual benefits of managing carbon leakage, but also helping with early deployment, innovation and bringing down the cost of capital. Over time, it's likely that the Exchequer will not want to foot the increasing bill of deep industrial decarbonisation. And to achieve this, deep decarbonisation will likely require policies that apply to imports in addition to domestic production, namely border carbon tariffs and minimum carbon standards. And we've set out a potential indicative timing of different policies here, but there's an awful lot of uncertainty. Therefore, the committee thinks that we need these options, these latter options to be made available, although the committee doesn't go as far as saying they should be implemented. Developing these policies will be challenging and likely take a long time, so the committee has taken that into consideration. But what we recommend is that development of these policies should begin, developing the option of having these policies should begin immediately to enable the longer term options of either applying border carbon tariffs or minimum standards to imports of selected energy-intensive products. This should include developing carbon intensity measurement standards, mandating these are disclosed and fostering international consensus around trade policies through the G7 and COP presidencies. The next set of policies is around delivering key measures to enable fuel switching in CCS. The committee recommends that the government should establish funding mechanisms to support operational and capital costs of both electrification and hydrogen in manufacturing. It should finalise the contract for difference mechanism to support industrial CCS and continue to support innovation and demonstration of fuel switching and CCS technologies. To enable resource and energy efficiency, the government should extend product standards to cover how product is made that includes aspects such as how repairable, durable and upgradeable product is and the level of recycle content. It should also work towards introducing a mandatory minimum whole life carbon standard for both buildings and infrastructure. There are several cross-cutting economic issues that need addressing, mostly around market mechanisms. To address these, the committee recommends that the government should create a clear incentive for non-traded manufacturing. Those the sector is not covered by the UK ETS that we now know it will be. By creating that incentive that incentive needs to incentivise the switch to lower carbon energy sources by reforming energy and carbon pricing. We also need to see a strengthening of carbon prices and taxes on manufacturers. At current levels, they won't be sufficient to enable the balance pathway. The government should also reform electricity pricing to reflect the much lower costs of supplying low carbon electricity in the mid 2020s and beyond. It also needs to address manufacturers need for very short payback periods, either through loans or grants potentially involving the new National Infrastructure Bank. There are also some crucial supporting policies required on infrastructure jobs and skills. On infrastructure, the committee recommends that there are at least two CCS clusters established in the mid 2020s, at least four by the late 2020s and further clusters around 2030. The government should work with the minerals industries to develop a detailed joint plan for CO2 transport from dispersed sites. It should prepare to make decisions about whether initial areas of the gas transmission and distribution networks should be converted to hydrogen. It should also plan for a potential increase in large localised network reinforcements and manufacturers. On jobs and skills, the committee recommends that industrial decarbonisation policies are designed in a way that creates and supports jobs, especially in regions with reliance on industrial jobs. Prompt toward of existing industrial decarbonisation funding can help with this and help with the recovery. All of the above recommendations will need to be wrapped into a clear and ambitious plan for decarbonisation of manufacturing construction, in particular through the government's industrial decarbonisation plan strategy that's planned for spring. This is crucial to bring momentum following the step change in ambition for industrial decarbonisation that's necessitated by net zero. On this ambition, it should include setting out how policy will enable deep decarbonisation while maintaining competitiveness and indicate ambitions by setting targets such as oil-based steel making and cement production in the UK to reach near zero emissions by 2035 and 2040 respectively. Plans also can't omit areas, so decarbonisation of off-road mobile machinery should be covered somewhere in the government's set of strategies. Finally, covering policy on decarbonising fossil fuel supply, although some of the previous recommendations have cut across all of industry. These further recommendations most likely sit within the North Sea or should sit within the North Sea transition deal which the government is planning. In this area, the committee recommends that the lower cost measures are mandated. This should involve setting a requirement that from 2021 any new plans for offshore oil and gas platforms must use low carbon energy for their operations and as a result or new oil and gas platforms should have no direct emissions from operational energy used by 2027 at the latest. Furthermore, from 2025, flaring and venting should only be permitted when necessary for safety reasons. There's also more expensive measures that the government should enable. Therefore, government should develop a policy to reduce emissions from existing oil and gas platforms in line with our balanced pathway and develop carbon intensity measurement standards for oil and gas and oil by working with industry and the international community. This could help to manage consumption emissions too. And finally, government should facilitate collaboration between the UK's offshore oil and gas sector and the offshore wind sectors to potentially enable direct connections from platforms to wind turbines. So that concludes the summary of our pathways and policy recommendations and I'll hand back to Keith.