 Thank you everyone, good morning and thank you Duncan for your introduction. I do want to acknowledge Duncan because while I was on the advisory committee under Duncan's leadership, a lot of this work has accelerated so I just want to say this is really good news. So my talk is based on a piece I wrote for Historic England and I hope you will follow me through this because I start with Channel 4. So I start with a friend of mine, she's Japanese and she works for Channel 4 and as you know Channel 4 is one of those organisations that really is set up to represent those alternative voices. It has a very strong ethos around diversity that filters down from senior management to the lowest paid staff and in one of my conversations with her about how it feels to be working for Channel 4 she said to me she felt extremely fulfilled and it was because she was totally accepted, totally valued and she wasn't judged and she felt part of a team and so it was okay for her to stay late, she was extremely motivated by the fact that she felt completely included. So clearly this diversity ethos has huge benefits for employees but it also has a huge benefit for the organisation itself because being accepted, fitting in, being valued for the work, not just the colour of your skin, your sexual orientation, or physical ability is a way of being productive and being inspirational. So with an ethos focused on promoting these alternative voices of the country and arguably arguably the world Channel 4 is also addressing what the diverse audiences of the 21st century are wanting to hear. So the viewers are feeling understood, valued and respected, they are important too. So without the viewer, Channel 4 wouldn't exist. There is this symbiotic relationship between the broadcaster and the viewer. So I want to turn our attention now to the heritage sector, the broadcaster of all matters related to history and the historic environment. I really want to ask us what is the message we are broadcasting to our viewers. And who are they? Who are our viewers? If we look at the demographic shifts that are happening in the UK now, we've got predictions that tell us by 2050, 20 to 30% of us are going to be from non-white backgrounds. So while the wide population remains more or less stable, those of different cultural origins are contributing to the greatest growth I imagine that's got something to do with birth and having babies. But essentially also immigration, although Brexit might put a stop to that. Anyway, the fact is that there's no denying the face of England is radically changing. A cursory glance of the message broadcast by the heritage sector so far tells us we're more or less reaching one segment of society. And I ask why. In my view, the answer is quite simple. We've only really told one major story. Our story was born out of this need to create a nation state with one unifying identity. In the process of creating this identity there's no room for diversity. To unify we had to absorb, co-opt, we had to eradicate all those multiple voices and multiple identities. We had to distinguish between who belongs in the story and who doesn't. The problem with the story today is that it doesn't really reflect reality. England has had a very complex history. You think about all of those conquests and the settlement by different tribes, peoples, empires and nations. In fact, England's heritage is a very complex palimpsest of human cultural interventions. Throughout that history we're told who fit in and who didn't. And in some cases we don't even hear about some of those cultural interventions because it doesn't quite suit the story. So in short, the story's been edited. And I know this has only recently begun to change. We heard from Duncan earlier that this has now become something that Historic England is taking quite seriously. And there have been bold initiatives to broaden Historic England's heritage interest. The new category of underrepresented heritages has emerged to take account of the diversity and complexity of societal groups that are less wealth represented in the mainstream thinking about heritage and key heritage management tools such as statutory lists. Supported by key policy documents like Power of Place, the Future of Historic Environment and Conservation Principles, the emphasis has been on everybody's heritage needs to be recognised and everyone should have the opportunity to contribute to his or her knowledge of the value of places. More recently I've become aware of the guidance notes on contested heritage which is advising on how to handle the changing nature of our understanding and interpretation of history. Sometimes that interpretation is painful, shameful and challenging. But quite wisely the response to contested sites is to provide alternative and counter narratives rather than removal or demolition. We can't be afraid of the many opinions and voices that define heritage. At the same time more crowdfunded stories are being encouraged from local people. Historic England's Pride of Place project or Enriching the List and another England seek to hear from local people what is meaningful heritage for them. These are all commendable moves. However, in my mind there still remains a distance between the broadcaster and the viewer, between those that belong and those that don't. Unlike the art sector who have made great strides in diversifying themselves as organisations, as curators of culture and in their audience development, the heritage sector still remains compartmentalised in its representation of Englishness. I think of Tate Britain in its complete definition of Britishness. So take a look, for example, at the naming of underrepresented heritages. I ask why is it a subcategory? We're clearly distinguishing between those heritages that are represented and those that are under represented. They are separate heritages. This may be the narration of historical omission, but the focus on the omission only serves to maintain the separateness. Similarly, the labelling of minority faiths holds similar connotations, distinguishing between majority and minority. Why do we need to maintain these hierarchies if we have one story? I think this form of language is a telling sign that the main story still remains, but now we have sub stories. But they're not maybe as important or of equal value as the main story. The sub story is still not woven into the fabric of the main story. It remains tokenistic and marginal. So we have to ask ourselves, what are we valuing? Who are we respecting? Whose heritage are we validating? Who belongs in the main story? So what can we change so our heritage sector is ready for 21st century England? I have two suggestions that would bring the heritage sector up to par with the art sector. The most obvious is changing the story. We need to broadcast the alternative voices, diverse and complex stories that make up our joint history. We want our viewers to identify with the diverse stories that represent them. There may be multiple stories on the same topic and I think this should be encouraged. The second change is what staffing exists in heritage sector organisations. Do staff represent today's society? Are they trained to research the many stories? Do they themselves identify with those many stories? Does the ethos of diverse stories filter down through senior management and the commissioners down to the lowest paid staff? If we look at the way in which society is represented, 51% women, 1.5% gay, 20% disabled, 20% non-white, this is the actual colouring of our nation today. For three years I sat on the Historic England Advisory Committee and I have to confess I felt very much a minority both in terms of my gender but also in terms of my ethnicity. It was clear that although the majority of the attention was focused on the listings which currently are mainstream heritage I only really experienced two agendas where we talked about underrepresented heritage and community projects. That was the reality of my experience but can this change? I think Historic England's diverse workforce strategy is an important and welcome step in starting the change. Looking to the future, if a new ethos of diverse stories, multiple interpretations, recognition of the complexity of English identities was integrated across the whole organisation, this symbiotic relationship between broadcaster and viewer would ensure Historic England's existence and success in the 21st century. We need our viewers. Thank you.