 I'm going to talk very quickly about some work we've just started doing this year and hope to continue looking at the professional standards documents that we produce. I'll just do a very quick introduction to see if I hope most of you are familiar with the organisation and if you're not, please do come and see us on the stall in the exhibition hall. We'd be delighted to talk to you. Our role is as a professional body so we set standards of practice and promote professional ethics. We do that in two ways. One is by monitoring standards of people so our members have to meet quality and competence standards in order to become members of the institute. And also to set standards for processes and products so the work that archaeologists do and good practice guidance. As a chartered institute which is a peculiarly UK designation although we're relevant in some other countries around the world, our role is to promote the public interest so ensuring that our members work in the public interest. We're not a society to promote necessarily the interests of our members although we would think of those two things as being very closely aligned. And we have a very strong message about the value that archaeology adds to society and to business. And we've very specifically linked that into our professional standards documents so that we can say that if archaeology isn't adding value it's not being done to professional standards and that's a really important part of the work that we've been doing recently. So just to give you an outline similar to the RPA we have a code of conduct which is the high level document that sets out the ethical obligations that our members have to fulfil and that's supported by a range of policy statements. Underneath that we have these are standards and guidance documents and they set out standards of practice covering all sorts of different archaeological endeavour. They're also supported, there is another tier underneath this which is technical guidance, good practice guidance but I'm not going to go into very much detail on that. So the standards and guidance themselves are intended to define good practice and to expand on our code of conduct and explain how that actually translates into the work that archaeologists do. They're very formulaic documents in some way so they start out with a standard which is a very short statement that describes an outcome. They're not about prescribing methodology, they don't tell you necessarily how to achieve the outcome but they do give advice and guidance on how the sector currently recognises good practice and the methods by which we currently advocate those outcomes can be achieved. And they're formulated by the sector and that's a really important point, they're not handed down by some higher authority, they're written by groups of archaeologists coming together, specialists in their field and deciding what good practice should be at this moment in time. So they're obviously evolving documents as well, they should move forward, they're not set in stone and they're not handed down from on high. And they're used widely in the UK particularly for as a quality standard so used to design archaeological work and used as the benchmark when work is commissioned. And most of our local authorities when they're setting a brief for a piece of work to be done within the spatial planning system for example will say that it must comply with C for standards and guidance. There are lots of them. Many of them date back to the early days of the institute, obviously they've changed a little bit in time over that period and they cover all the things that you would expect so archaeological excavation, field evaluation, desk based assessments. We have some very specific ones for geophysical survey for forensic archaeology, a slightly odd one here about nautical archaeological recording which is a very specific and niche area. And the most recent one that we produced probably about five years ago now covers that consultancy role for commissioning archaeological work and procuring services. So it's more about how the ethical provisions in our code of conduct translate in that day to day transactional relationship between clients and consultants and people actually doing the field work if that's a different organisation. This is an example, say the standard itself is a very brief statement and in some ways it's a very bland statement because these documents aren't intended to be prescriptive, they're intended to set out an outcome. They don't tell you how to do an excavation, they're not there if you were a day one, didn't know what you were doing, you don't prep the standard guidance and it tells you what to do, it tells you what you're trying to achieve and the standard that you're trying to achieve. One of the things that we've been looking at recently is how relevant these documents still are, how they're being used by practitioners and how they need to evolve in the future if they're going to continue to be relevant. One particular area that's causing us a little bit of difficulty at the moment, most of them have a statement along these lines in them, they're very much founded in UK professional practice and that's for a very good reason because as I said in an earlier slide it's because they're formulated by the sector and when they were formulated most of our members were in the UK. Now most of them still are but we have an expanding membership in a range of other countries and even within the UK professional practice is changing so the regulatory frameworks across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have changed and we might need to have different guidance in the future for each of those jurisdictions. So this is an area that we're particularly looking at and potentially thinking about in the future whether we need to have one standard that sits above everything and then potentially different guidance that applies in different countries. That's one of the biggest challenges really which is when you get into that discussion about which comes first, the chicken or the egg because in order to gain traction in order to be relevant to members in other countries we need our documents not to look like UK documents because that doesn't make sense if you're an archaeologist working in Germany or in Azerbaijan or in out of Mongolia or wherever you might happen to be. But unless we have members in those areas we can't formulate the guidance. We don't have a sector operating in those areas to help develop that guidance so that's one of the real challenges that we're trying to explore at the moment and we're discussing with colleagues particularly in Germany with the Cifidwetang group as how do we get that momentum and enough members in Germany to start formulating the guidance that's relevant. Obviously not having to start from scratch because we have the basic documents there but how do we need to amend and adapt them in the future. And that's going to potentially from a resource point of view that's quite a big challenge to take forward. So as I say these are the areas that we're looking at as well as expanding into areas providing documents and guidance and advice for members outside the UK. We're also obviously looking at constantly changing methodological practices trying to keep it up to date with technological changes and the way that practice advances. And also recently debating a lot are standards and guidance tend to be used as a minimum standard so it tends to come down to minimum compliance and that's not really what we want to be doing. Yes we do need to have that minimum standard that says above this is professionally acceptable, below it is professionally unacceptable. But we also want to promote best practice and we also want to look at innovation and how we can evolve the standards and guidance so that people don't just say well right what's the minimum I need to do, where's my checklist. Right I've done that, I've done that, I've achieved a professional standard. We want our organisations, our registered organisations, our members to be thinking creatively and innovatively about how they approach different pieces of work so that is a big challenge. The other big challenge that we're facing is how we ensure compliance and encourage the balance between carrot and stick. Do we threaten to throw people out of the institute because they've not met the standards or do we work with them and provide more training and guidance to Kenny's waving the stick. To encourage them and to help them meet the standards and we talk a lot about trying to ensure a level playing field and it's a slightly mythical level playing field I think in reality but what our standards should do is give those competing organisations who are bidding for work the baseline in that process. We also find there's a very poor understanding of what self-regulation means in the UK. We don't have, say there is no higher authority that tells us how to do things, there's no definition, no formal definition of an archaeologist outside of CFA's definition and that causes a problem so organisations, individuals can operate outside of the CFA structures and still compete within that environment. Of course the more we promote the rules, the more we promote the standards the more likely we are to start getting complaints and allegations of professional misconduct which has its own set of resource issues of how we deal with those and how we make sure that members see that when things do go wrong we are effective in taking action against them. I'm going to leave those challenges with you because I think I've probably run out of time but I look forward to discussing them and hopefully later on in the session. Thank you.