 Thank you. Leonard, as is his right as the keynote speaker, has said virtually everything I wanted to say. I come at this not as a lawyer, obviously, but as an archaeologist with about 25 years' experience of working with the World Heritage Convention first at a national level and then at an international level. You could say, therefore, that I am scarred by UNESCO, but I'm surviving. Right, we named the preamble, the abstract for this session, named three documents, the Valletta Convention, the Lausanne Charter and the Solala Guidelines for the Management of Public Archaeological Sites. Who's read all three of them? OK. For those of you sitting near the front, apart from the four of you in the front row, there's one other person in the room who admits to reading all three. Now, they're very different documents, as Leonard has said. The Valletta Convention is a treaty and is binding on the state's passage which has signed it. The Lausanne Charter is basically a commos guidance and the Solala Guidelines are the same. The point of my question is that if people haven't read them, they won't use them. The bits of international guidance that are out there at the moment that people actually use are very heterogeneous. The Venice Charter gets used, which is a pity because it's so old, and it has a very European monumental approach to conservation when you're in the rest of the world. The other charter which gets quoted most is the Barra Charter, which was written as a national Icamoss Charter specifically for Australia, but has influenced conservation certainly in the English-speaking world more than most other documents in the last 20 years or so, because it touched a common theme which people picked up. So as Leonard said, there's no point in having these documents if you don't use them. Just park that for a moment, we'll come back to it. The second point I wanted to cover was, does international protection of heritage actually work? It probably works better in Europe than some other parts of the world, apart from the notorious black spots like Liverpool in the UK, which will shortly be on the World Heritage and Danger list, probably. We'll see. Elsewhere, there are some horror stories, basically where various organisations have attacked heritage as a means, as a weapon of war almost, as a weapon of ideology. But I think we are in a better position with the World Heritage Convention, which is the one that gets most cited because it involves places than without it. We have success stories. We have one successful prosecution for destruction of heritage as a war crime in Mali. We have the ban on mining activities in natural world heritage sites, made by the mining industry, and so on and so forth. So I think probably it does have some benefits. And on balance, it's probably a force for good, despite there being major problems in implementation. OK, so what about translating Valletta into a global convention? For a start, as Lenard has said, it would be complex and time-consuming. Looking, I reread the Valletta Convention this morning. I reread the Lausanne Charter this morning, and I read Salala last week again. Salala is good for a publicly managed archaeological site. But those, in a sense, are safe anyhow, or should be, because they're managed by archaeologists for the public. Should be safe? Possibly. They're shaking heads in the front row again. But the bulk of archaeology isn't owned by the public for public protection and display. It's out there, loose and free, in private ownership. If you were going to update Valletta, you would need to update it to meet the current context in which we manage heritage. This is a context which sees heritage as much more integrated with everyday life. It sees heritage as intimately being connected with things like the Sustainable Development Goals 2030. Who's read those? Well, that's better than reading all three documents that we're meant to be discussing. Good. We will be dealing more with human rights issues. We will be dealing more with things like the World Heritage Sustainable Policy. This is a real mouthful, this one. It's UNESCO speak. Policy for the integration of sustainable development perspective into the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. But the point about it is it raises a whole series of issues about how you use heritage, how you involve the public and so on. If you were doing a global archaeological convention, you would need to be seeing it in those lights of being part of a sustainable development economic system and so on in a way which is totally different to how the letter is written. And you would spend a lot of time negotiating it and you probably wouldn't get there. Also, a new global archaeological convention would be very particularist in the sense of taking archaeology out from the rest of heritage and treating it separately, as Leonard said. And we have a lot of existing international legislation covering heritage in general. He put it all up on the screen so I won't read them out again if I run over my time and then Doug will get cross. We also have, and the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1972 convention, article five, the one that everybody forgets and never reads, which Leonard put up on the screen, is about the protection of all cultural and natural heritage, not just the World Heritage sites. People think about the World Heritage list but they've also signed up to protection of cultural and natural heritage generally. Alongside that, you have the UNESCO recommendation on protection of national heritage of cultural and natural heritage, which is soft law, but is about how you protect heritage which isn't on the World Heritage list and has no chance of being on the World Heritage list. So there is a lot of stuff out there already we could use which would see archaeology as part of heritage as a whole, which is how I think you should see it. And you would want, and already we can see with the World Heritage Convention, there is a lot of guidance out there starting with the operational guidelines, one of the most indigestible reads in heritage management. I can say that because I helped draft the version which was published in 2005, which we're largely living with still. And then there's the next level down from that, a series of resource manuals on managing natural World Heritage sites, managing cultural World Heritage, risk management, disaster prevention and so on, all of which is there, all of which you can actually use without thinking about World Heritage. The cultural heritage one will work for any site in what it says about management systems and so on. So my view would be that rather than spending a lot of time and effort on developing a new global convention where it would probably take 50 or 60 years to get the level of take up we've got for the World Heritage Convention, we should be trying to improve the guidance for the international instruments we've already got and using those to make people manage heritage better. And then doing all of Leonard's eight points at the end, particularly raising awareness and leaping up and down at the decision taker, saying, look, your government agreed to this 50 years ago, do it. And I'll stop there. Thank you.