Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[ken_whittaker]

Following response has been sent to IfA. Anyone who shares similar concerns are welcome to draw on this statement if it helps you to draft individual responses:

[SIZE=3]There is much to applaud in the draft Guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment service. It works really well where the guidance is clearly rooted in adopted policy and practice and where it demonstrates balance. However, where it departs from these principles it results in guidance that is potentially unreasonable, as it directs historic environment services to operate beyond terms of reference they can reasonably sustain. It also unjustifiably promotes narrow interests, to a degree that the IfA’s position is conflicted in a number of areas. I am particularly concerned that aspects of the guidance could leave Local Authority historic environment services subject to investigation as defined in section 26 (1)a of the Local Government Act 1974 for ‘alleged or apparent maladministration in connection with the exercise of the authority’s administrative functions’.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]My concerns relate to section 10 Monitoring and managing quality. Guidance on measures to assist advisors manage the quality of their service to clients/customers is reasonable and welcomed.However, the guidance alsorecommends advisors manage the quality of third party archaeological practitioners through mechanisms that, perversely, outsource responsibility and control by means of:

? endorsement of ‘accredited’ archaeological services, and:

? ‘greater reliance on self-regulation by archaeological practitioners’.

This aspect of the guidance is wholly inappropriate:

1. It confuses and potentially diminishes the advisor’s position on the local provision of historic environment services;

2. It defines a role for advisors that lacks an explicit regulatory pretext. To my knowledge existing national policies that apply to advisors operating in England and the devolved authorities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not confer any responsibility for ensuring quality controls for the performance of third party archaeological suppliers. Consequently adopted Local Authorities development plan policies do not generally authorize such a role for historic environment services;

3. The guidance casts the IfA as an accreditation provider. However, the IfA is not certified by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). UKAS is the national body recognised by Government to assess accreditation providers against internationally-recognised standards. UKAS certification is the sole Government recommended scheme to Local Authorities;

4. The guidance wholly omits reference to UKAS certified ISO 9000 archaeological services as suitable accredited practitioners, despite these conforming with Government advise to local authorities on accreditation.

Without UKAS certification it is inappropriate, based on Government advice, for the IfA to imply or claim competence, impartiality or capability as an accreditation provider in support of the role of local authorities (as they are defined in the Local Government Act 1974). To encourage advisors to adopt the RO scheme places Local Authorities in conflict with Government advice on this matter. Omitting reference to UKAS accredited ISO 9000 archaeological services is likely to further compromise the position of Local Authorities. As a result implementation of the current guidance is likely to result in ‘alleged or apparent maladministration in connection with the exercise of the authority’s administrative functions’, especially as quality managing 3rd party practitioners by Local Authorities is not a requirement under planning policy.

The guidance also demonstrates further lack of fairness, balance and impartiality in the issue of IfA accreditation. This arises as a conflict of interest in relation to the IfA’s:

? established role of developing, promoting and distributing professional standards and its apparent intent that its own RO scheme is the only accreditation scheme recognized in the guidance it authorises;

? its promotion of RO accreditation inhibits the commercial interests of non-RO organizations, to the disadvantage of IfA corporate members who are employed by such organizations.

On the basis of the potential risk of maladministration and in order to avoid IfA’s conflicted interests I recommend the following paragraphs are wholly struck from the final guidance:

To reduce the requirement for monitoring, there should be greater reliance on self-regulation by archaeological practitioners (Southport Group 2010 Rec. 20).

Advisors must seek to ensure that archaeological investigation is undertaken only by individuals or practices that demonstrate they meet IfA standards, and may require that investigation is carried out only by corporate members of the IfA, by an IfA Registered Organisation or their EU equivalent (Southport Group 2010 Rec. 24).

Advisors may require that suppliers be professionally accredited. There is no competition law bar in principle to advisors imposing a requirement that suppliers be professionally accredited, and IfA registration through the Registered Organisation scheme could be a justifiable measure of accreditation in accordance with legal advice provided to the IfA (Ref. http://www.archaeologists.net/ sites/default/files/node-files/ta77.pdf).

Accredited suppliers under the IfA Registered Organisation scheme reduce the risk to applicants of selecting a supplier who will not meet industry standards, and ensure that there is recourse to a third party (IfA as accreditation provider) in the instance that quality criteria are not met.

Advisors should not use local lists of suppliers unless they are compiled and monitored using criteria at least as stringent as those for IfA registration. To do so would leave advisors open to accusations of restraint of trade for unreasonably excluding a supplier from the list, and allegations of a failure in a duty of care for negligently including suppliers that may not have the necessary competence.

Instead the guidance should stick strictly to the advice set out in the PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide and Government advice to Local Authorities on accreditation. Inclusion of the following statements would be appropriate:

Advisors must seek to ensure that archaeological investigation is undertaken only by individuals or practices that demonstrate they meet appropriate technical standards, such as those issued by the IfA, IHBC, English Heritage, Historic Scotland and CADW.

Compliance with planning policies requires local planning authorities to use expert advice to inform their decision-making where the need to understand the particular significance of a heritage asset and any proposed impact demands it. This may be from in-house experts, experts available through agreement with other authorities, or professional consultants. This advice may be complemented by advice from heritage amenity societies, including the National Amenity Societies.

Local planning authorities will often find it useful and/or necessary to seek the advice of appropriately qualified and experienced individuals or organisations. This may be, for example: to inform the plan-making process, to provide advice on the significance of a heritage asset, or to undertake an archaeological survey.

There are several established registers that can be used to identify appropriately qualified individuals or organisations. Though not exhaustive, the list below may be helpful:

1. The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) has a register of organisations for historic environment practices. The IfA requires their members to meet defined levels of competency.
2. The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) website provides links to several registers of specialist individuals and organisations. The IHBC requires their members to meet defined levels of competency.

Advisors may also require that suppliers be professionally accredited. Archaeological services supplied under UKAS accredited ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems would be ensure Local Authorities comply with Government advice on accreditation.

I would be pleased to further discuss these matters if it would aid understanding of my concerns. Unfortunately, I am unable to support adoption of the guidance until these matters are fully and satisfactorily resolved.
[/SIZE]