 I'm Vicky Cummings based at the University of Central Lancashire, and I'm Andy Gardner based at UCL and we are the co-chairs of University Archaeology UK. So University Archaeology UK represents around 40 archaeology departments in the UK. In this short presentation we're going to address some of the points raised in the manifesto document particularly relating to those areas which discuss the role of universities and highlight the positive input that universities can have on the future of the discipline. So the manifesto states that the five-year review in 2017 of the Southport report concluded that while good progress has been made against many of the report's recommendations, the overall vision of public participation had yet to be delivered. University Archaeology is both well placed and experienced at delivering public participation as this aspect of our work is now assessed and measured as part of the Research Excellence Framework, the REF, published this year and linked to our research funding. The impact case studies in particular assess, amongst other things, influence on policy, the impact our work has on the public, social and economic capital and wellbeing. 61 impact case studies were submitted by university departments and 60% of these were deemed four-star, meaning quality that is world-leading. Over half of these were based in the UK and the REF panel noted that approaches to delivering impact have developed and matured over an extended period, drawing upon long-term strategies and relationships. Our conclusion is this, university archaeology excels at delivering public participation and impact and is ideally placed to assist with this outside of academic archaeology, but of course we need to build long-term relationships with other partners to do this. So the manifesto claims that innovation in archaeological practice and collaboration between commercial field archaeology, universities and local government are rare. Well this is simply not the case. There are several units based within departments and many others have very close links with units in a range of different ways from collaborative doctoral research projects to placements. Moreover, universities are directly involved in innovating and developing new approaches. Another quote from the manifesto, the academic sector with its wealth of expertise must be called upon or encouraged to contribute to current archaeological work in a more consistent and meaningful way. Since this is already taking place, clearly the issue here is the perception of our contribution and something that obviously does need to be addressed. There are some matters within universities however that we do wish to highlight. The key issue our members report is capacity. Staff spend their time dealing with the core business, which is from a university point of view is teaching students because they generate income for us and admin relating to teaching students. And number two, delivering research in the form of books, papers, impact case studies and again income in this case in form of research income. And this is how our members spend the bulk of their time. The main issue our members report is that archaeology recruitment is static, however, and in order to grow capacity in staff, we therefore need more students. The issue is exacerbated by the loss of the A level archaeology and UAC has a series of initiatives to promote archaeology as a subject to study at university, but we do need more support with this. Collectively, we can promote archaeology as a great subject to study and this will produce more students, more capacity in universities and thus even more collaborative opportunities, but we can only do this with increased capacity and the commercial sector therefore needs to support us if we are to expand and grow. The report suggests that funded advice on development projects from relevant academic specialists to commercial units and curators could be facilitated by developing partnerships between regional hubs and universities. The proposal still link academic with commercial, curatorial and other expertise within the framework of regional hubs has much merit in principle, but has to contend with certain practical challenges. The scale of regions is obviously one factor and depending on how the map of these is drawn, there may be several or no universities with archaeology departments in the same area. Specialists with relevant area or period expertise may work in entirely different institutions and of course many members of academic staff and universities have research interests around the world, as indeed do students. It might be necessary to survey departments to identify relevant and available experts nationally before aligning them with the regional hubs. So the future of archaeology in England rightly identifies several deficiencies in the current organisation of the discipline and the profession. Many of the proposals most directly impact the curatorial part of the sector, along with commercial units. In universities, we're certainly much concerned with public impact and outreach and the public value of archaeology. This is not just a metric value, nor just one to be couched in terms of local identities, but a challenging and highly contemporary one with research findings encouraging people to think critically about the roles of the past in the present and in the future. The public is not homogeneous and neither are archaeologists. In order to prosper into the future, the discipline must expand and diversify our admissions and we must address both the concerns around skills and recruitment in the profession, while also promoting archaeology as one of the most enriching and holistic degree subjects, which is highly suitable for a wide range of careers. We are open to all further discussions that might help us, all of us collaborate more effectively going forward.