Memorandum submitted by RESCUE, The British
Archaeological Trust
INTRODUCTION
1. RESCUE is an entirely voluntary and self-funded
organisation established in 1972 to promote the position of archaeology
as a central part of the cultural and intellectual life of the
nation. Our remit is a wide one, promoting the interests of archaeology
in Britain and our membership is drawn widely from both the professional
and amateur/voluntary wings of the discipline. We have only one
part-time employee and the Rescue Council is drawn entirely from
working archaeologists and active amateurs. We feel that this
gives us a unique insight into the wide range of issues that affect
archaeology and thus put us in a position of being able to campaign
on issues with which we are dealing on a day-to-day basis. We
are regular contributors to the debates initiated by documents
produced by English Heritage and relevant government departments,
and also contribute to wider discussion through our membership
of Heritage Link and The Archaeology Forum.
2. RESCUE welcomes the opportunity to comment
on the draft Heritage Protection Bill. We note that the Committee
has requested views on specific questions, relating to the overall
scope of the draft Bill, the estimates of costs and benefits,
and the staffing and skill levels required for effective implementation.
We have therefore designed this response to address these areas
of concern, rather than provide a wider appraisal.
THE OVERALL
AIMS AND
SCOPE OF
THE DRAFT
BILL
3. The draft Bill aims to create a unified
regime for the protection of terrestrial and marine heritage,
addressing the suggested confusion currently inherent within the
system of legislation covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Areas Act (1979), the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act (1990), the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
Act (1953), and the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). Broadly and
briefly, the draft Bill addresses the creation of new Heritage
Registers for England and Wales, defines what type of site or
structure will be eligible for inclusion on such a register, and
outlines the proposed process for registration. Control of works
and prevention of damage to registered Heritage structures and
issues such as heritage partnership agreements, use of metal detectors,
compulsory purchase, guardianship and preservation works are covered
also. Marine heritage licences are outlined, and proposals for
the creation of statutory Historic Environment Records are outlined.
The draft Bill follows on from the white paper Heritage Protection
for the 21st Century (2007), which outlined the Government's aims
and objectives
4. We particularly welcome the following
areas which the draft Bill addresses, as representing the achievement
(in part or in full) of issues that have concerned RESCUE and
other heritage organisations for a number of years:
— the creation of a unified system
for national designation to replace the current categories of
listing, scheduling and registering;
— the creation of statutory status
for Historic Environment Records (HER) as described in Part 5,
paragraphs 210-215; and
— the expansion of the definition
of archaeological monuments to include those relatively ephemeral
sites of early human activity which do not include permanent structures.
5. We are concerned and disappointed however
by the many omissions from the draft Bill as it currently stands.
Details of matters relating to (for example) World Heritage Sites,
conservation areas, and ecclesiastical exemption, are missing,
to be addressed in separate documents. It is also the case that
related heritage issues such as reform of the current PPG's 15
and 16, provisions for the maintenance of the status of museums
and their collections and archives, the protection of the settings
of historic sites, or details of how these proposals relate to
the ongoing reform of planning legislation are ignored. We are
also greatly concerned that there will be a distancing of local
people and amenity bodies from the decision-making on heritage
matters. We recognise that some (but not all) of these issues
are to be addressed, but we do not believe that the "creation
of a simplified unified system" is promoted by the piecemeal
release of a series of separate documents which do not clearly
relate to one another or could be mistakenly viewed in isolation.
6. RESCUE therefore urges the Committee
to examine the process by which this Bill has been drafted and
released and discuss if whether or not this is appropriate, fit
for purpose, and fulfils the overall objectives of the original
consultation and White Paper to end the fragmentation apparent
within the current system.
7. RESCUE also urges in particular that
the Committee support the creation of a robust PPS, to replace
the current PPG's 15 and 16, within the provisions of this reform.
We would argue that the draft Bill should include an explicit
restatement of the importance of PPG 16/replacement PPS as the
primary means by which provision is made for the archaeological
recording of unknown, undesignated and locally designated archaeological
sites and monuments prior to their alteration or destruction through
development and other kinds of non-reversible impact.
8. We further note that the creation of
statutory HER's is not accompanied by a similar commitment to
propose a statutory duty on the relevant authorities to provide
qualified Heritage Advice and Curatorial services. In effect,
this assumes that HER's are a static archive requiring little
more than simple administration, which is not the case. An HER
is a dynamic resource, which requires constant updating and alteration
as additional work in the Historic Environment is undertaken our
knowledge of the past increases. In order to fully resource a
statutory HER, it is surely necessary to ensure that the appropriate
levels of qualified supporting expertise are also provided. We
believe that this omission from the draft Bill could lead to the
inadequate implementation of these proposals in the short term,
and their operation over time.
9. RESCUE would therefore suggest to the
committee for their consideration, that in order to fully implement
these proposals it would be necessary to require that an HER be
a part of a properly-resourced and statutory Historic Environment
Service, which would provide the appropriate levels of skill and
expertise to ensure that the information available for consultation
is both reliable, current, and adequately supported.
THE ESTIMATE
OF COSTS
AND BENEFITS
SET OUT
IN THE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
10. RESCUE endorses the significant concerns
raised over the resourcing arrangements in the Impact Assessment
that have been submitted by other bodies within the archaeological
community. In particular we would like to add that whilst we welcome
the proposals to make the provision of a Historic Environment
Record a statutory responsibility on local authorities, we are
concerned that without a commitment to adequate financial support
for this initiative, these authorities will fail to carry the
required measures forward. We note the suggestion given in the
Impact Assessment that an initial one-off cost of £628, 276
is indicated to implement this policy, with an annual commitment
rising to £565,095 pa after five years. We believe that with
approximately 80 such HER's in England and Wales, such figures
are likely to prove to be both inaccurate and wholly inadequate.
Furthermore, we do not believe that overall it is possible to
quantify that there will be the levels of savings within the operation
of the new system that the Impact Assessment has given, and would
like to query the basis for these figures.
11. RESCUE would strongly urge the Committee
to question the sources for the estimates for the likely costs
of the creation of statutory status for HER's, and query their
validity. This should be undertaken in conjunction with testimony
from a sample of the local authorities which would be required
to implement the proposals, and involve the submission of their
own independent estimates of the costs. RESCUE would urge that
similar scrutiny be applied to the financing necessary for the
operation of the unified designation system, and the creation
of the proposed national Register of Heritage Assets.
THE STAFFING
AND SKILL
LEVELS REQUIRED
FOR EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE PROVISIONS
IN THE
DRAFT BILL
12. We note that amongst the "Key Assumptions/Sensitivities"
it is stated that: "[...] we assume that the number of people
working within and using the heritage protection system in the
future will not deviate from current trends." and that: "Organisations
can continue to carry out administrative duties effectively."
English Heritage has seen progressive cuts to its budget over
the last decade with a consequent decline in staff numbers and
an increase in the workload for those who remain. Changes to the
roles played by English Heritage are outlined at various points
in the draft Bill but we are concerned that these are not matched
by an explicit commitment to the increased staffing or training
which will be necessary if these are to be implemented efficiently
and comprehensively. We would expect to see this matter addressed
as a matter of urgency as it underpins much else that is proposed
in the Bill. We would draw attention particularly to the resource
implications of the new designation process, which we do not believe
can be accomplished with the resources currently available at
either national or local levels.
13. RESCUE wishes to highlight that "current
trends" have actually involved a severe reduction of financial
resourcing and staffing levels for heritage protection at both
English Heritage and Local Authorities across the country. We
would urge that the Committee question the ability of English
Heritage, and Local Authorities in particular to adequately resource
and implement these proposals without a significant increase in
expertise and staff which is not outlined within the Impact Assessment.
RESCUE would also like the committee to seek clarification of
the precise definition of "One-off training and capacity
building" for local authorities (paragraph 37), and query
how it is proposed that this will be met from within English Heritage's
current allocation, particularly when the same paragraph contains
the statement that a breakdown of costs relating to the training
needs of local authorities| is not currently available."
June 2008
| 
