26th January 2006, 03:00 PM
I recall a few years ago that George Lambrick carried out a couple of reviews of aspects of Irish archaeology - one was on urban evaluations, think the other one was about monitoring but can't remember the title. These used to be available on the Duchas website but are not there any more.
One point that came out was that he could find very few of the 12 month detailed reports that were supposed to have been submitted. At first Duchas (who issued the licences) claimed that the reports had been misplaced and were probably being used by someone else. Then it turned out that Duchas did not feel that they could actually enforce that part of the license agreement, as they were not funding the reporting themeselves. I supose the point here is that any licensing system is only as good as the regulators. Unless adequate funding is provided the system will always be open to abuse and inconsistency.
As someone who has occasionally forayed into Irish archaeology as a consultant, but who is not a license holder (or has ever applied for one) I have found the whole set-up to be potentially problematic. I suspect this is why the Irish equivalent of the Highways Authority (and the Gas Board) has had to find ways around the system rather than trying to comply with it.
As already stated, licenses are issued to individuals. Despite much lobbying (particularly from UK units eyeing up major fieldwork jobs on the roads) it is not possible to have a license issued to a corporate body. Whilst some may see this as a benefit in terms of setting up a personal level of responsibility, there are significant consequences.
The license requires the licensee to ensure that the work is carried out properly and is adequately reported, to full publication if necessary. As in the UK however, the contract for the work is usually between the contractor (who employs the licensee) and the developer. Through the issue of the license, the licensee undertakes to see the whole project through to completion - but has no personal contractual agreement for funding. If the developer can't / won't pay for reporting, the licensee may well (through no fault of their own) be unable to fulfil the terms of the license. They would also have no redress against the developer and the developer's contract was with the contractor (corporately) and not the licensee.
What happens if a licensee wants to move to take up a post with another contractor ? Do they get to take all the jobs for which they hold a license with them (but of course they only ever hold one license at a time !) or does the license have to be transferred to another license-holder at their present employer ? What if the present employer doesn't have any other license-holders, or if all license-holders have no capacity for additional licenses.
These are only a few of the issues that I have come across in an admittedly small amount of consulting work in Ireland. I'm sure that there would be many more that could arise. Licensing might be one way of meeting Valetta, but there could be better ways.
Beamo
One point that came out was that he could find very few of the 12 month detailed reports that were supposed to have been submitted. At first Duchas (who issued the licences) claimed that the reports had been misplaced and were probably being used by someone else. Then it turned out that Duchas did not feel that they could actually enforce that part of the license agreement, as they were not funding the reporting themeselves. I supose the point here is that any licensing system is only as good as the regulators. Unless adequate funding is provided the system will always be open to abuse and inconsistency.
As someone who has occasionally forayed into Irish archaeology as a consultant, but who is not a license holder (or has ever applied for one) I have found the whole set-up to be potentially problematic. I suspect this is why the Irish equivalent of the Highways Authority (and the Gas Board) has had to find ways around the system rather than trying to comply with it.
As already stated, licenses are issued to individuals. Despite much lobbying (particularly from UK units eyeing up major fieldwork jobs on the roads) it is not possible to have a license issued to a corporate body. Whilst some may see this as a benefit in terms of setting up a personal level of responsibility, there are significant consequences.
The license requires the licensee to ensure that the work is carried out properly and is adequately reported, to full publication if necessary. As in the UK however, the contract for the work is usually between the contractor (who employs the licensee) and the developer. Through the issue of the license, the licensee undertakes to see the whole project through to completion - but has no personal contractual agreement for funding. If the developer can't / won't pay for reporting, the licensee may well (through no fault of their own) be unable to fulfil the terms of the license. They would also have no redress against the developer and the developer's contract was with the contractor (corporately) and not the licensee.
What happens if a licensee wants to move to take up a post with another contractor ? Do they get to take all the jobs for which they hold a license with them (but of course they only ever hold one license at a time !) or does the license have to be transferred to another license-holder at their present employer ? What if the present employer doesn't have any other license-holders, or if all license-holders have no capacity for additional licenses.
These are only a few of the issues that I have come across in an admittedly small amount of consulting work in Ireland. I'm sure that there would be many more that could arise. Licensing might be one way of meeting Valetta, but there could be better ways.
Beamo