Updated: 7 March, 2006
© RESCUE

Protecting, preserving and making accessible our nation's heritage

A response to the call for contributions to the work of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust

January 2006

In November 2005 the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Committee announced an enquiry into the heritage sector entitled Protecting, preserving and making accessible our nation's heritage . The remit of the enquiry was as follows:

The Committee is particularly interested in receiving evidence on the following issues:

• What the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White Paper;
• The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside Government;
• The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy;
• Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community;
• Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and for museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding for heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the sharing of funds from Lottery sources between good causes;
• What the roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities, museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental organisations in maintaining the nation's heritage; and
• Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation skills; the priority placed by planning authorities on conservation; and means of making conservation expertise more accessible to planning officers, councillors and the general public.

All of these are issues on which RESCUE has campaigned over the years and our response to the call for contributions is reproduced here in full:

Introduction

RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust was founded in 1972 in response to the building boom of the later 1960s and early 1970s and the enormous losses sustained by the nation's heritage as a result. RESCUE campaigns locally and nationally for the interests of archaeology, seeing the subject as lying at the heart of our nation's cultural life. The recent successful resolution of the issue of ongoing damage to the site of the Roman town of Verulamium through ploughing followed sixteen years of campaigning on the issue and is an example of the type of work that we undertake. We are active in supporting local and community groups in protecting archaeological sites and landscapes. Examples include our support for the Dartmoor Preservation Association in their campaign to save the Blackbrook Valley and Crownhill Down from open cast mining. We are also active in opposing the plans to extend gravel quarrying in the vicinity of the Thornborough henges in North Yorkshire and regularly highlight threats to sites and landscapes in our publication RESCUE NEWS. We are also active in calling for far better funding for local and regional museums, seeing these institutions as of fundamental importance to the care and curation of the archives resulting from the activities of the commercial archaeology sector undertaken as part of the PPG 15 / PPG 16 regime.

We respond regularly to discussion documents issued by the DCMS, English Heritage, CADW and Historic Scotland and have recently produced substantial responses to Power of Place , Force for our Future , Understanding the Future: Museums and 21 st century life and Tessa Jowell's recent essay Better places to live .

RESCUE is entirely funded by the contributions of members who are drawn widely from amongst the profession, the voluntary sector and the interested public. We publish RESCUE NEWS three times a year and distribute this to our members and, free of charge, to a variety of institutions and individuals concerned with the historic environment in general and archaeology in particular. We hold a half-day public meeting in March each year during which a theme of relevance to the heritage sector is discussed by invited speakers with different angles on the issue.

We have published a number of practical handbooks which are widely used within archaeology. In co-operation with the Institute of Conservation Archaeology Group (ICON-AG) we have published First Aid for Finds , a handbook for the on-site conservation and handling of archaeological finds. This is widely used in the UK and has been translated into Greek, Japanese and, most recently, Georgian (the latter in association with David Connolly of the British Archaeological Jobs Resource).

We are an active member of both The Archaeology Forum and Heritage Link but retain our own individual character, seeing the considerable diversity within the heritage sector as an indication of its strength and wide significance within British society.

Response and evidence

RESCUE is pleased to be able to offer the following comments on the issues raised in the call for contributions to the work of the Committee. We will be happy to elaborate on any or all of the issues at a later date, should the Committee feel that this would be helpful and we are more than willing to supply the Committee with copies of our responses to recent Government discussion documents (as referenced in the text).

Question 1: What should the Department for Culture, Media and Sport identify as priorities in the forthcoming Heritage White Paper

• Sites and Monuments Records / Historic Environment Records (SMR / HER) should be placed upon a statutory footing as soon as possible .
• The non-statutory planning guidance notes PPG 15 and PPG 16 should be strengthened and placed on a statutory footing as soon as possible .

This move has been repeatedly urged by those concerned with the future of the historic environment. While a revision of PPG 15 appears to be in progress, that of PPG 16, which is concerned specifically the buried archaeology, has yet to be addressed. This delay has already led to serious losses as re-development in towns and cities is proceeding rapidly, often at the expense of unique archaeological sites, rural landscapes and townscapes.

• Reform of the system of Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) class consents

The current system of class consents allows the continuation of wholly unsuitable activities on the sites of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, notably ploughing. RESCUE looks for reform of this situation and the provision of powers for English Heritage to insist on the cessation of unsuitable forms of land use or management which threaten these uniquely valuable sites.

• A change to the funding of local and regional museums which will either place on local authorities a statutory obligation for their effective funding, staffing and maintenance or will remove them from local authority funding entirely and ensure their effective direct funding from increased DCMS resources.

We have highlighted our many concerns about the ongoing decline of the local and regional museum sector in our recent response to the DCMS document Understanding the future: Museums and 21 st century life (RESCUE 2005) and must restate our profound concerns here. The vulnerability of museums to cost cutting exercises which affect staff numbers, staff training, the quality of staff and the adequacy of the care and curation available for existing museum collections are a matter of public record. Throughout the country local and regional museums have lost staff and have been forced to take decisions which have negative implications of the future of collections and archives which are of national and international importance. We would also emphasise the lack of adequate storage space for the new archives generated by work undertaken under the PPG 16 regime. The direct result of this is to place in peril the effectiveness of the principle of ‘preservation by record' which is fundamental to archaeology as a discipline. It also makes continuing work on collections by museum staff and visiting scholars difficult or impossible and so may preclude the use of these collections in contributing to public enjoyment and appreciation of the results of work carried out under the PPG 16 regime.

• Support for innovative archaeological and historical research through existing institutions including museums, SMRs / HERs, university-based archaeological units, and the larger archaeological Trusts

Research is the life-blood of archaeology. It is a research-based discipline which depends upon the research process in order to develop and deploy new approaches to the material remains of past human lives and actions which lead to new interpretations of our past and new ways of presenting the results of our endeavours to the wider public. We are concerned that the DCMS does not fully appreciate the central place that research plays within archaeology (or within the historical disciplines generally) and so fails to understand the tension that exists between aspects of developer-funded archaeology and the research process. To neglect research is to imperil the development of new approaches to the past which emphasise context, contingency and the significance of alternative viewpoints. All of these are essential if we are to move beyond an essentially static notion of the past and of archaeology as a means of illustrating existing narratives. We look to the committee to investigate this aspect of the discipline and the ways in which research can be encouraged and supported.

Question 2: The remit and effectiveness of DCMS, English Heritage and other relevant organisations in representing heritage interests inside and outside Government

• The Department of Culture Media and Sport

With reference to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, RESCUE welcomes the recent appointment of Mr David Lammy as Minister with specific responsibility for matters concerning the historic environment. RESCUE is an active supporter of both The Archaeology Forum and Heritage Link , organisations which are working to increase understanding within the DCMS of the scale, diversity and significance of the heritage sector generally. In spite of these positive steps we remain concerned that there appears to be little understanding amongst ministers, their advisors and civil servants within the Department of the significance and importance of the diversity which is a characteristic of the heritage sector. We believe that this is a significant problem for the Department and one which can only partially be addressed by the sector itself. We would like to see a much greater engagement by the Department with the heritage sector generally and with those elements which are specifically archaeological in nature. Ministerial involvement in high-profile exercises in public archaeology is to be welcomed and we recognise that the Minister cannot himself investigate individual areas of concern. We would, however, suggest some form of fact-finding activities which would see civil servants and ministerial advisors engaging in a practical sense with the day-to-day realities of life in the heritage sector. A low-profile visit to a typical local museum storage area would, we suggest, be extremely effective in focussing minds within the Department on the very real and practical problems created by the long-term underfunding of these mundane but essential facilities.

Civil servants and ministers within the DCMS appear largely ignorant of the essentially dynamic nature of archaeological and historical research. We are not illustrating established ‘stories' about the past but are actively engaged in the writing of diverse and often competing accounts of the past from the raw data which emerges from research founded upon the activities of excavation, survey, recording and analysis. It is these activities which make the study of the past vibrant and dynamic. The apparent ignorance of these aspects demonstrated by Ms Tessa Jowell's recent essays has been profoundly depressing and steps should be taken to improve the relationship between the DCMS and the heritage sector (and particularly the archaeological component) by improving the understanding of archaeology and its objectives within the Department.

A related issue is the repeated calls from Ms Tessa Jowell and the Department generally for the heritage sector to engage with the wider community. RESCUE is, and has always been, deeply concerned with the amateur and voluntary archaeological sector (we were, for example, responsible for the formation of Young RESCUE in 1972 which became the network of Young Archaeologists Clubs now ably managed by the Council for British Archaeology). British archaeology has always benefited greatly from the participation of the amateur/voluntary sector but the extent of this seems to have passed the Department by entirely (as we outlined in our response to Better places to live ). Throughout the country local and regional bodies (societies, clubs, trusts and other organisations as well as individuals) regularly undertake original archaeological fieldwork and are supported in this by museum staff and professional archaeologists, often on a voluntary and unpaid basis. Some recognition of the value of this work by the DCMS would be much appreciated, as would the recognition that within professional archaeology there is an existing commitment to working with amateur/voluntary groups which is unmatched in any other area of cultural or social scientific endeavour. RESCUE challenges the Committee to find anything comparable to the network of local archaeological societies in, for example, sociology or anthropology. Only in the fields of ornithology and natural history can comparable levels of amateur/voluntary input be found but this state of affairs is simply unrepresented within recent statements emerging from the Department. We shall return to this point in connection with the future of Lottery funding for the heritage sector as this has been of great value and appears to be threatened by the sports lobby and particularly the looming threat of the levels of funding required for the staging of the Olympic Games in 2012.

• English Heritage

RESCUE supports the principal of a strong, state funded body responsible for the care, management and investigation of the historic environment and believes that English Heritage is the body best suited to this task.

We believe that English Heritage requires a period of organisational stability in order for the many changes of the last few years to take effect and for the new ways of working and the increased remit of the organisation to stabilise. ‘Constant Revolution' is a discredited policy which undermines the morale of staff and damages the effectiveness of institutions. RESCUE is aware, from information supplied confidentially by English Heritage employees, of the negative effects on morale of staff of the recent rapid and often contradictory changes within the organisation. Such matters, although difficult to quantify or define in any precise way, have a profound effect on the effectiveness of any organisation. English Heritage has lost many effective and experienced members of staff in recent years and there may well be problems in coming years in persuading new high quality staff to join the organisation. We believe that now that new organisational structures and a plan for the next five years have been put in place (English Heritage 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), the organisation must be given time to stabilise and to implement its new policies. We would hope that, in the next few years, it will be possible for English Heritage to seek to recruit individuals with recent research experience from universities and to seek to attract back some of those who have left to join the commercial sector. Job security and an environment in which excellence in both the academic and fieldwork areas of endeavour and proven research ability is recognised and rewarded are essential if the ambitious plans recently outlined are to bear fruit. In order to do this, we would suggest that the following steps should be taken:

• The DCMS should support the recently announced five year Research Strategy and should maintain a ‘hands-off' policy with regard to the structure and functioning of English Heritage until the effects of recent changes to the organisation can be fully assessed and evaluated;

• Existing budgets must be maintained as a basic minimum and increases which exceed the rate of inflation should be sought as a matter of urgency in order to allow expansion in the research and development areas of the organisation. A greater proportion of the resources available to English Heritage should go directly into the investigation of the past so that new, innovative and exciting perspectives can be developed and, ultimately, presented to the public;

• The budget for English Heritage should be guaranteed against the potentially adverse effects of the Olympic bid and other bids for the hosting of large-scale sporting events. Work required to deal with the negative impact of such events on the historic environment should be funded over and above the existing commitments and should be viewed as an additional burden upon English Heritage, not something to be dealt with out of existing budgets. A levy on the already amply funded sporting sector (and its related media industries) should perhaps be considered as a source of funding for these activities.

RESCUE is in the process of completing an assessment of the English Heritage Research Agenda and the proposals for a UK-wide research strategy. We will be happy to supply copies of these to the Committee, should they be considered to be of relevance.

Question 3: The balance between heritage and development needs in planning policy

RESCUE is deeply concerned about the balance between the needs of the development industry and the historic environment. We are particularly concerned by the fact that the demands of the former are generally assigned a much higher priority than the latter. Inevitably, the investigation of any archaeological site or landscape will always involve compromises in terms of the detail of the fieldwork and post-excavation analyses undertaken, but RESCUE believes that, at present, the advantage is weighted towards the interests of the developer and against that of the historic environment and the public benefit which can be derived from it. As an example of this, we would cite the case of the current controversy surrounding the proposals to extend gravel quarrying in the immediate vicinity of the Thornborough Henge complex in North Yorkshire . Although the henges themselves are Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the area around them enjoys no protection at all, rendering it susceptible to inappropriate and destructive quarrying which will not only destroy archaeological evidence pertaining to activities around the henges (which are generally believed to be the focal point of ritual and communal activities, linked to religious rites) but will also destroy the unique landscape setting of the henges, something which is essential if visitors are to appreciate the henges themselves. The area involved is something less than four square miles in extent and represents only a small fraction of the areas of sand and gravel suitable for extraction in the wider region. We would argue that in cases such as this (a relatively small number when considered on a national basis) the interests of the historic environment should be accorded a higher value than those of commercial development; Thornborough Henges and their setting are unique while sand and gravel are relatively widely available resources.

As outlined above, RESCUE has long advocated that Historic Environment Records be placed upon a statutory footing in order to give additional weight to the limited powers currently available to development control staff (also known as archaeological curators) within the local authority planning system. We have also advocated the drafting of strengthened versions of the existing PPG 15 and PPG 16 guidance notes and the translation of these into law, again as a matter or urgency. The adoption of these two long overdue measures would go some way to giving the historic environment parity with the development industry.

In terms of the detail of planning policy, the principle of preservation in situ , (which underlies PPG 16 as it operates at present) while it is not without its merits, has become a restraint upon the investigation of archaeological sites threatened by development. It is widely used as a way of decreasing the financial responsibility of developers towards the wider society of which they are a part. Excavation should not be limited to the minimum necessary in any given case but should be adequate to investigate a given site as fully as is needed in archaeological terms.

RESCUE is also concerned about the implications of the emergence of a class of commercial archaeological practitioners known as ‘archaeological consultants'. Often operating under the aegis of larger civil engineering companies, consultants are employed to act for the interests of the development industry, their role being to undermine and limit the conditions attached to planning permission for specific developments and to constrain the work being carried out by archaeological contractors. As they are paid directly by the developers, they are clearly not independent of their employers and they cannot be considered to be in a position of offering independent or impartial advice. While we recognise that many consultants struggle to find a balance between the demands of their professional responsibilities towards the historic environment and their financial responsibility towards their clients, we are deeply concerned about reports which suggest that, on occasion, a small number of companies find it advantageous to lean more towards the interests of their clients than towards the wider public benefit represented by the historic environment. The absence of any effective professional body within archaeology (comparable to the Law Society or the British Medical Association) means that there is no method of internal self-regulation and so no effective recourse for those who have legitimate complaints against archaeological consultants or contractors.

The wider implications of the role of consultants and the nature of the consultant – client relationship have attracted some comment in the archaeological literature (e.g. Cumberpatch and Blinkhorn 2001), but the powerful influence wielded by consultants (exercised through their central role in the awarding of contracts for fieldwork and post-excavation work) has tended to restrict discussion of these issues to the margins of conferences and to informal gatherings of archaeological practitioners. RESCUE is aware of situations in which the influence of consultants has been detrimental to the full investigation of archaeological sites. Concrete examples of such cases are difficult to substantiate because of the unwillingness of individual archaeological contractors to risk the displeasure of consultancy companies and the loss of potentially lucrative contracts.

At the more general level, it seems that the fees paid to consultants are included in the calculations of the sums coming into archaeology under the PPG 16 regime. These are not translated into tangible archaeological outcomes as the money does not go into the costs of fieldwork or post-excavation analysis, but rather into the provision of advice at the managerial level. The outcome of this is that fieldwork and post-excavation work is under-funded while consultants, who, in the overwhelming majority of cases, make no direct contribution to the investigation of the archaeological deposits on a given site, take a disproportionate segment of the total available budget. The expenditure of these sums of money does not translate directly into the quality of the archaeological outcomes in spite of the fact that it appears to have been spent on archaeological fieldwork. No figures exist for the sums thus used, but RESCUE believes them to be high.

RESCUE believes that the strengthening of the powers available to curatorial and development control archaeologists working within Sites and Monuments Records and/or Historic Environment records together with the restatement of their position as the only truly independent monitors of work undertaken under the PPG 16 regime might be a way of reducing the current undue influence of consultants on the conduct of archaeological fieldwork. It might, additionally, have the effect of bringing more money into archaeology through the PPG 16 regime without increasing the liabilities of developers to any degree. We stress this last point, because we are not arguing for an increased financial burden to be placed upon developers, but rather for greater efficiency in the use of currently available resources.

Question 4: Access to heritage and the position of heritage as a cultural asset in the community

• The amateur/voluntary sector

Britain has one of the most active and effective amateur/voluntary archaeological sectors in the world, a result of the unique social conditions which were responsible for the emergence of archaeology as a discipline in the later 18 th and 19 th centuries. For many years the voluntary / amateur sector was organised through a network of local societies and field clubs (often based in local and regional museums), but recent years have seen the diversification of the sector as a wider range of community groups have taken on heritage-related projects and the scope of what is considered to be archaeology has broadened and deepened. The recent availability of funds from a number of Lottery-related institutions (notably the Heritage Lottery Fund) has allowed a much greater degree of collaborative work between amateur/voluntary groups and the professional sector. This has given the voluntary/amateur sector the ability to commission specialist work from professionals to answer questions which have arisen as a result of their own fieldwork projects. RESCUE welcomes such developments enthusiastically and sees such collaboration as an enormously positive step in that it connects the interests of local communities with the skills and abilities of professionals. In our experience both sides benefit greatly from such collaboration and the net effect is to enhance the public understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment by improving the levels of involvement and the quality of the outcomes.

Amateur/voluntary projects not only involve a greater number of individuals in the excitement and immediacy of archaeological fieldwork and post-excavation analysis, but also increase wider public access to the historic environment through open days and exhibitions. Such events are now a regular feature of weekends in many parts of the country and it is rare that we hear of such an event which attracts less than a thousand visitors over a weekend, even where there is an admission charge. The following quotation, one of many which we could present, comes from a volunteer involved in a project near Oldham in Lancashire :

We held an open weekend at which over a thousand people attended. It was free entrance so you can't really compare with a site which charges, but then there was almost no publicity either. The site is one of the many 16 th century and later halls which met its end in the years immediately prior to the Second World War. It was bulldozed by the predecessor of the very council which is now so enthusiastic about digging up the remains. The dig continues next year, under the auspices of a very well organised local history society. There were almost no small finds but that didn't prevent me from being allocated the job of presenting such finds as there were to the public on the open weekend. I've never spent so much time talking about early lemonade bottles! 

Other, larger, projects such as Dig Manchester have achieved remarkable results in increasing community cohesion, reducing local crime rates and engaging a broad cross-section of the community in investigations of their own past. An excavation at Northenden Mill in southern Manchester, part of the Dig Manchester initiative, saw a team of seven professional archaeologists working with a total of 512 adult volunteers and 528 children from thirteen local schools, including a special needs school and teenagers from a local pupil referral unit (Redhead 2005). Such a ratio of professionals to amateurs surely indicates a highly effective use of public resources (in this case a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund) and amply refutes the charge, made by some, that the professional sector is siphoning off funds for its own benefit under the guise of public benefit.

Equally importantly from the strictly archaeological point of view, such projects make a real contribution to our understanding of the historic environment. The collaborative project at Mellor near Stockport which involves the local Mellor Archaeological Trust, The University of Manchester Archaeological Unit, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit and Stockport Museum attracted 1410 visitors to an Open Weekend in September 2005. It has also involved the production of an accessible but scholarly volume consisting of interim reports on aspects of the project and the wider later prehistoric and Roman periods in the region (Nevell and Redhead 2005) which has been sold widely to visitors and professionals alike.

This is not the place to try to summarise the country-wide success of recent public-professional partnerships and initiatives but RESCUE has good reason to believe that the picture from Manchester is repeated elsewhere and could be extended throughout the country, given the availability of suitable funds. The crucial factor is that the volunteers are aware that they are participating in genuinely original research while visitors to the site are seeing the past of their local community revealed before their eyes (and those who visit one year often become more directly involved in later years). In some cases (such as Mellor) the opening of a new museum dedicated to the history of Stockport will allow the finds from earlier years to be displayed while new work continues on the site above the town.

The DCMS seems, belatedly, to be recognising the value of initiatives such as those described above (and we welcome David Lammy's visit to Shoreditch in the summer of 2005), but it is clear from the content of Tessa Jowell's essays Government and the value of culture and Better places to live , that there was, until recently, widespread ignorance of the level of popular involvement in such projects and the level of public enthusiasm for them within the Department. Ms Jowell is eloquent in her own enthusiasm for theatre, opera and dance, but seems unable to appreciate that such events are inaccessible or unattractive to many people who would rather spend their time in activities which involve the acquisition of new skills and new knowledge for themselves rather than the passive appreciation of relatively arcane skills practised by others. Clearly the DCMS has a remit to oversee the whole range of cultural activities within the country and we are certainly not seeking to detract from the importance of the provision of a wide variety of cultural pursuits, but we would expect the Department to accept that while traditional theatrical and artistic events no doubt have wide appeal, they are not to the taste of all and that active participation in the production of the past is considered by many to be both more exciting and also more relevant to their own lives and experiences.

In addition to the examples cited above, RESCUE will be happy to supply further examples of publicly funded projects which have had a real and lasting impact on the communities which have participated in them, should this be required.

Question 5: Funding, with particular reference to the adequacy of the budget for English Heritage and for museums and galleries, the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on Lottery funding for heritage projects, and forthcoming decisions on the sharing of funds from Lottery sources between good causes

Much of what has been stated in the previous section is of relevance to the question of budgets and funding. The examples quoted above clearly demonstrate the importance of ensuring a secure future for the Lottery funded collaborative projects involving the professional and amateur/voluntary sector, as well as for those which involve the amateur sector alone. This section calls for a wider consideration of funding, however and the various aspects cannot be subsumed into each other.

English Heritage

As noted above, we believe that the recent programme of cuts to English Heritage budgets have been both deep and savage. Further cuts will, we believe, damage the institution severely and probably irreparably both through their direct impact on staffing levels and on the nature of the work undertaken by English Heritage staff. Equally significantly, further cuts will cause further damage to morale within the organisation and this will contribute to problems in recruiting high quality staff. No one, we suggest, would relish working within an organisation in which the overall theme is constant decline and this will have a direct impact on recruitment. The recent publication of the corporate plan and the five year research agenda should, we believe, mark the end of cumulative year-on-year cuts to English Heritage budgets and should be seen as the start of the resurgence of English Heritage as the country's leading institution concerned with the historic environment. We believe that funding should be increased at a rate above that of inflation in order to fund an expansion of the research capabilities of English Heritage to support the principles embodied in the research agenda.

Museums and galleries

RESCUE has been active in highlighting the progressive run-down of local and regional museums throughout the country over the last five years. The present funding arrangements, whereby museums and galleries must compete with social services, education, police, fire and civil defence requirements for a share of local authority budgets is wholly inadequate and requires reforming. The funds made available via the HLF, Renaissance in the Regions and similar project-orientated initiatives are no substitute for reliable core funding for institutions which have fixed staff costs, a need to conserve, maintain and make accessible permanent collections of local, regional and national importance and to carry out or to facilitate research into these collections.

The success of the PPG 15 / 16 regime in ensuring that the ‘polluter pays' for damage to, and the destruction of, archaeological assets, while effectively bringing more money into archaeology, has failed to lead to an increase in funding for the curation and care of the archives resulting from such fieldwork or to expanded opportunities for research based upon these archives.

The inability of the present system to support the creation of appropriate new facilities for the storage and study of material recovered from new excavations is a matter of extremely grave concern as it contributes directly to a failure to maintain the link between excavation, post-excavation research and analysis and the process of publication whereby new knowledge gained from excavation and survey is translated directly into public awareness via publication

While educational and presentational facilities have been created (often to very good effect) in a wide variety of museums, heritage centres and visitor attractions, the infrastructure which supports educational outreach work and the presentation of new discoveries and new interpretations has been neglected. The extent of this neglect cannot be over-estimated. Collections and archives of national and international importance are rendered virtually inaccessible through their storage in inappropriate and inconvenient buildings. In some cases it is difficult for curatorial staff to maintain basic standards of access with the result that new and innovative work is difficult or impossible. As it is only through such work that our understanding of the past in enhanced, this has a direct effect on the types of information communicated to the public and thus on public perception of the past and its relationship to the present.

RESCUE sees the establishment of a new and improved means of delivering appropriate resources to local and regional museums as an urgent priority and one that should be given careful consideration by the Committee.

The impact of the Olympic bid on funding of heritage projects

… it is community archaeology projects that provide a way forward to engage with the public in all sorts of proactive and stimulating ways. Many thousands of people have taken part in archaeological excavations in Greater Manchester this summer. Community schemes are also flourishing in other parts of the country, for example the Chester Amphitheatre project (Redhead 2005).

The availability of funds administered by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has increased the ability of the archaeological profession to undertake work alongside the traditional voluntary sector. Perhaps more importantly it has allowed the professional sector to engage with many people who have, hitherto, had little or no opportunity to participate in archaeological investigations and research (and we should not be afraid of characterising such work as research, even though the word appears to be anathema to many, largely because they have little notion of what it actually entails). RESCUE is not in favour of using HLF or other public funds to replace or support work which should be carried out under the ‘polluter pays' principle of PPG 15 / PPG 16. We believe that the opportunity to bring the benefits of archaeology (including the many diverse skills that must be learnt in order to carry out fieldwork and post-excavation analysis effectively) to a wider public should be seized and acted upon. HLF funding represents an opportunity to do this and after such a promising start over the last few years, the prospect of losing that opportunity for whatever reason is profoundly disturbing. We would argue that the prospect of hosting the Olympic Games or other high-profile sporting events should not be allowed to have any impact on the provision of funds for other activities, particularly those associated with the historic environment.

RESCUE is not anti-sport and we are not opposed to the holding of the Olympic Games in London in 2012, but we believe that the revenue generated through the Lottery should be used in diverse and complementary ways and should not be devoted to a single, relatively narrow range of activities such as sport. We look to the Committee and to Parliament generally to ensure that Lottery revenue is spent equitably and wisely for the benefit of the country and society as a whole and not solely for the benefit of one region or for one sector of the population. The sports and media industries (which effectively combine to form an extremely powerful lobby group) have a revenue-raising potential far in excess of that of the voluntary / amateur archaeology and heritage sectors and this should be recognised in the appropriate allocation of funds. We believe that such a policy will have social benefits far beyond those which will accrue from the Olympic Games alone. We shall oppose any reduction in the funding available to the heritage sector generally between now and 2012 on the grounds that investment in one area of activity should not be allowed to have a negative impact on unrelated areas. We would suggest that as the sports broadcasting and merchandising industries are worth vastly in excess of the costs of work related to the historic environment, that a levy on these activities should be employed to provide any additional funds to support sporting activity in the UK , allowing other funds to be devoted to other areas of public interest.

Question 6: What the roles and responsibilities should be for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities, museums and galleries, charitable and other non-Governmental organisations in maintaining the nation's heritage

English Heritage

As stated above RESCUE believes that after several years of ‘continual revolution' English Heritage should be allowed a period of stability in order to be able to put into operation the ambitious plans outlined in the five-year corporate strategy and Research Agenda. The role of the organisation has been extended beyond that originally conceived of at the time of its establishment and this expansion has been accompanied by a period of reduced budgets and staffing. We look to the Committee to ensure that English Heritage is given the opportunity to re-establish and renew itself before any further changes to its remit or responsibilities are considered.

Heritage Lottery Fund

As noted above, RESCUE believes that the Heritage Lottery Fund has played a vital part in facilitating and expansion in popular participation in archaeological and historical research. We believe that this is an enormously positive development and something that should be encouraged. We therefore look to the Committee to act to safeguard existing levels of investment in community archaeology and partnership schemes involving the archaeological profession and local communities with a view to engaging the interest of people in the active researching of the history and archaeology of their own communities.

Local Authorities

As outlined above, RESCUE has argued consistently for the creation of a statutory responsibility on local authorities to maintain and make accessible Sites and Monuments Records / Historic Environment Records as an integral part of the planning process and to facilitate access by the public to information about the historic environment. We look for a situation in which the Historic Environment is accorded the kind of importance that surveys of popular attitudes indicate that it deserves. Local authorities play a central part in this through their responsibility for the local planning system and their role in local and regional development. We are particularly concerned that staffing levels within local authority archaeological services should be brought up to and maintained at a level which will allow the effective monitoring of planning applications and the provision of high quality and well-informed advice to local authorities. Staffing levels should also be sufficient to ensure the maintenance of full and up-to-date records. These records are the backbone of any effective Sites and Monuments Record / Historic Environment Record and play an important role in both the provision of advice in respect of planning matters and are also unique educational resources. We welcome the increasing move towards public accessibility through computerisation, but note that this is an expensive and time-consuming process which requires investment and support from both local and national government. We look to the Committee to emphasise the role of local authorities as curators with responsibilities for the Historic Environment in the medium and long term, and to emphasise that this responsibility requires effective investment in both staff and facilities.

Museums and Galleries

Our concerns about the current state of museum provision for the curation and long-term protection of archaeological archives has been described above. We have evidence that in some areas of the country archiving facilities are no longer sufficient to cope with the volume of material being generated by fieldwork undertaken under the PPG 16 regime. We look to the Committee to investigate this matter and in particular to look at novel and innovative ways to deal with the situation that do not involve the destruction, dispersal or discard of existing collections. The re-use of suitable surplus military sites (notably bunkers and other structures built during the Cold War) might be one avenue worth investigating. Another might be collaboration with the warehousing and logistics industry which has considerable experience in the field of space and cost-effective bulk storage in relatively low-cost facilities which may be applicable to the storage of archaeological archives. At the very minimum we would hope that future investment in new museums and galleries is matched by investment in storage and research facilities. The results of improved access to collections will be increased public appreciation and understanding of the past and an improved level of communication between historic environment professionals and the public to the benefit of both.

Charitable and non-governmental organisations

Charitable and non-governmental organisations play an important role in the safeguarding, investigation and safeguarding of the nations heritage and historic environment. RESCUE is not aware of any specific issues surrounding the ways in which these activities are currently conducted, although we have consistently argued (along with virtually all organisations active in the historic environment field) for the reform of the VAT regime which currently favours demolition and rebuilding over the repair and reuse of historic buildings. While we appreciate that the resolution of this matter involves negotiations with the European Community, we do not feel that such essentially bureaucratic considerations should stand in the way of the reform of a system which actively encourages the destruction of parts of our historic landscape. This VAT burden falls unfairly on charitable and non-governmental organisations and should be removed as a matter of priority.

Question 7: Whether there is an adequate supply of professionals with conservation skills; the priority placed by planning authorities on conservation; and means of making conservation expertise more accessible to planning officers, councillors and the general public .

Although the question is aimed at conservation specifically, RESCUE would argue that archaeology should be included within its remit. We note that the Institute of Conservation Archaeology Group (ICON-AG) will be making a separate and independent submission to the Committee and for this reason we will limit ourselves to comments on archaeology.

Conservation of the historic environment is one important aspect of the heritage sector, but there is a need for improvements in all aspects of the sector, particularly with regard to pay and conditions within both publicly funded and commercial archaeology.

Data pertaining to pay and conditions within archaeology and related sectors have been presented in two editions of Profiling the Profession (Aitchison 1999, Aitchison and Edwards 2003) and these provide a useful snapshot of the state of the profession at the dates of publication. No significant change has been noted since the publication of the 2002/3 edition of this authoritative survey.

RESCUE is concerned that the relatively low rates of pay within the profession (particularly marked within commercial sector) and the lack of clear career structures are damaging to the recruitment of individuals of ability. We are particularly concerned that the combination of these two factors means that recruitment remains largely limited to a relatively narrow section of the population and we are convinced that the combination of low pay and limited opportunities for professional advancement and development are a major factor in perpetuating this state of affairs. The perceived lack of social inclusivity within the heritage sector has been noted by the DCMS on a number of occasions. RESCUE agrees that this is a serious problem but notes that the DCMS has failed to address the fundamental reasons for this problem which lie within the area of career opportunities, pay and conditions. These are problems which must be tackled both by the profession itself and also by other agencies, including English Heritage and local government. A clear lead from the DCMS is required in this area. The shrinking of staffing levels in both English Heritage and the local and regional museum sector means that opportunities for new entrants to the profession are increasingly limited as ‘downsizing' reduces staff numbers and the opportunities for promotion.

RESCUE is particularly concerned that the cuts to English Heritage budgets have had (and continue to have) an adverse effect on training and professional development. This means that there is an ever shrinking core body of experienced professionals, available for employment within both the public and the commercial sectors with the skills that are developed through experience outside higher education. While a first degree and, increasingly, a post-graduate qualification are essential first steps towards employment in the heritage sector, academic qualification is but one aspect of the range of skills needed within the sector. The acquisition of experience and knowledge of the type that comes from cumulative ‘on-the-job' experience and close engagement with the archaeology of a particular region or geographical area are still as vital within archaeology as they ever were, something that is probably unique to the discipline. Existing structures of employment based upon short term contracts, the contract-tender system and commercial competitiveness are inadequate for the creation and maintenance of the kind of skilled and experienced workforce which is required if the heritage sector is to fulfil its potential. Members of RESCUE have direct personal experience of the problems which are arising on an increasing basis as a result of the withering away of the relatively informal but effective training regimes which hitherto characterised archaeology. These problems affect both the commercial and the publicly funded sectors and require immediate attention if they are to be remedied.

The structure of the commercial archaeology sector is such that there is extremely limited provision for the training of the next generation of professional archaeologists. Britain has a reputation throughout the world as a leader in the theory and practice of archaeology, but this position (which results in our archaeologists working all over the world, taking a lead in the excavation, conservation and presentation of World Heritage and other sites of global importance) cannot be sustained under the present funding arrangements. At present the provision for effective career structures for researchers and skilled professionals in the fields of excavation, survey, artefact research, paleo-environmental research and other areas of specialisation are wholly inadequate to sustain the present levels of innovative and original thought upon which the sector relies.

RESCUE regards this issue as an extremely serious one which requires urgent action if it is to be rectified before the present older generation of practitioners retires.

Bibliography

Cumberpatch, C.G. and Blinkhorn, P.W. 2001 Clients, contractors, curators and archaeology: who owns the past? M. Pluciennik (Ed.) The responsibilities of archaeologists . British Archaeological Reports International Series 981.

DCMS 2001 The Historic Environment: A force for our future http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2001/his_force_future.htm

English Heritage 2000 Power of Place: The future of the Historic Environment . http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discovery/heritage-review/index.asp

English Heritage 2005a Making the past part of our future. English Heritage Strategy 2005 – 2010 English Heritage.

English Heritage 2005b Discovering the past, shaping the future: Research Strategy 2005 – 2010 English Heritage.

English Heritage 2005c English Heritage Research Agenda: An introduction to English Heritage's Research Themes and Programmes English Heritage.

Nevell, M. and Redhead, N. 2005 Mellor: Living on the edge. A regional study of an Iron Age and Romano-British upland settlement . Manchester Archaeological Monographs volume 1. The University of Manchester Archaeological Unit / Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit / Mellor Archaeological Trust.

Redhead, N. 2005 Community Archaeology: The Greater Manchester experience . Rescue News 97, Autumn 2005.

Aitchison, K. 1999 Profiling the profession; a survey of archaeological jobs in the UK . Council for British Archaeology / English Heritage / Institute of Field archaeology

Aitchison, K and Edwards, R. 2003 Archaeology labour market intelligence: Profiling the profession 2002/3 . Institute of Field Archaeologists / Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation. http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/prof/LMI_Report1.pdf

RESCUE 2005 Understanding the future: museums and 21st century life: The value of museums. A response by RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust . Unpublished document submitted to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, June 2005.