Burial Licences - New Procedure?

[drpeterwardle]

Kevin,

This is why I raised the issue of the IFA code of conduct. I would suggest in the circumstance guessing the IFA response is not good enough.

To say the situation is confused is an understatement.

Simon raises the very valid point of get on with job which was lawful 3 weeks ago or take a risk on censure ie legally and via the code of conduct.

It would be helpful if the IFA could comment on this.

Peter Wardle

(Simon is a member of the IFA - can we keep discussion none personal.)

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle This is why I raised the issue of the IFA code of conduct. I would suggest in the circumstance guessing the IFA response is not good enough.

It isn't a matter of guessing the IFA's response, because if a complaint is made regarding the conduct of an IFA member it will be referred to the disciplinary committee who will observe due process, investigate and invite the member to answer the charge.

My difficulty is that if I and other IFA members fail to act on a breach of the Code, we are ourselves in breach. (And I do think in those circumstances the original poster has been unfair to us...)

This might apply even if no legal offence were to take place; as an IFA member making a public statement as to their intent to openly flout the law (whether that law is good or bad), is in itself a breach of the Code. You may remember a case last year when an IFA member made a public statement of their intent to breach employment and discrimination law. Whether they actually did would be a matter for the courts; whether they observed the IFA Code of Conduct in making the statement, was a matter for the IFA.

I wonder in the interests of natural justice and as a protection for all concerned, whether this and earlier statements regarding Simon's intent might be removed from the list until such a time as the IFA could be contacted to comment (I am thinking that would be Monday morning at the earliest)

Kevin

[drpeterwardle]

I cannot see what is wrong with Simon comments at all given the legal complexities. It may be that no offence is committed, as I understand it, in any event. This is the point.

In particular I think there does need to be discussion on this and sharing of infomation.

My own view is at present is if at all possible wait and see if some clarity emerges while EH do their job.

The IFA website contains the following statement

"It has come to our attention that the practice of the Ministry of Justice in dealing with applications for licences under the Burial Act has changed. The statement received from the Ministry of Justice (or its predecessor department) in response to a number of applications is set out below.

English Heritage in discussion with DCMS and MoJ has issued the following statement of the current position which has been posted on Britarch: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadm...F=P&P=8294.

The IFA shares the enormous concern expressed by a large number of members and is working with a number of bodies, including English Heritage and the Church of England to resolve this issue. A letter has been sent to the Minister of State, the Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP expressing our concerns and requesting a speedy resolution to this matter. A copy of the letter will be posted on the website (together with any response) once its receipt has been acknowledged.

Whilst the IFA has made representations on behalf of the profession, we strongly urge those who may be affected by changes in practice to write directly to the Ministry of Justice to express their concern, and detailing any specific issues as soon as they emerge."

Peter Wardle

[Simon Collcutt]

On a point of information, I am no longer a member of the IFA. However, an interpretation of the various IFA Codes that would see my actions and/or statements as being in breach is absolute nonsense and I would be happy to appear before the IFA Disciplinary Committee (of which I was once a member) to uphold my position. This situation is indeed "not fair" to IFA members, because it is prejudicial to all professional archaeologists, and it can hardly be claimed that it is my analysis that is the cause.

[BAJR Host]

First... welcome Simon...

I have been watching this and other discussion on this new act with interest and concern..

Although I too am an IFA member.. and could be seen to be in breach as well.. I myself can see how it comes to interpretation.. I feel (rightly or wrongly) that the post should remain. If only to highlight the issue - if the IFA (who read this forum) wish to comment, then they are able to.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

David (Bajrhost) said:

"....on this new act". This is incorrect it is not a new Act which would have gone through a process of consultation, revision and debate.

The situation arises over re-interpretation of existing law not new law or even new regulation by the new MoJ.

At present the consultation process for a new act is underway and a summary of the consultation is available on

http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/buriallaw/...#conspaper

which states for example

"One of the recommendations of that report was that there should be a review of the legislation surrounding burial and cemeteries. In its response, the Government agreed that there was a need for all aspects of burial law to be reviewed, and proposed that the issues to be considered included rationalisation of regulation across the public and private sectors, the management of cemeteries, enforcement of the legislation, and exhumation or disturbance after burial."

Sebastin Payne suggests the following for the current situation:

* in many cases, archaeologists and developers may no longer be required to obtain licenses under the Burial Act 1857, and may be free to proceed, at least so far as burial legislation is concerned, without statutory constraints on the removal, study, sampling and retention of buried human remains.

The point is that the MoJ are saying in some cases that they donot have the powers to either authourise or prohibit the excavation. The issue of the licence meant in fact there was certainty that the excavation and analysis of burials was entirely lawful.

Without that licence and associated conditions it is now less clear cut than previously that the archaeological excavation of an ancient burial was 100% lawful.

What is needed is clarification from MoJ or a legal precedent. EH have said that "MoJ intends to ensure as far as possible that any disruption to the work of archaeologists and developers is kept to the minimum"

Peter Wardle

[kevin wooldridge]

As Simon is no longer a member of the IFA, he would appear to be absolved of any responsibility to adhere to the IFA Code of Conduct.

[BAJR Host]

Would it be correct to say that work carried out or agreed to be carried out (under contract) that has/is about to take place is now in doubt due to a change in interpretation.. and what day did this happen .. and am I also right in thinking that no organisation was aware of this possible reinterpretation.. and if they were.. why is this only now coming to our attention now.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Simon Collcutt]

Thank you for the welcome. Amusing as the digressions over my professional conduct have been, perhaps we should concentrate on more significant matters.

Many commentators (including Sebastian Payne) seem to be suggesting that there will be no (future) need for "archaeologists and developers" to obtain a licence. It is very difficult to see how such deregulation could be prevented from becoming generalised - nobody would need a licence to disinter human remains. We have to ask ourselves whether we think this would be in the public interest ... I certainly do not.

[Duchess]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Would it be correct to say that work carried out or agreed to be carried out (under contract) that has/is about to take place is now in doubt due to a change in interpretation.. and what day did this happen .. and am I also right in thinking that no organisation was aware of this possible reinterpretation.. and if they were.. why is this only now coming to our attention now.

Exhumation licences issued before the changes occurred still stand, so projects that have a licence can continue. What has changed is that exhumation licences are no longer being issued, which has stalled a number of projects (various figures have been put forward, the last I heard was 30-40). The first refusal I heard of was on 5th June, but in his e-mail to Britarch on 7th June, Sebastian Payne of EH said "About ten days ago, the Ministry of Justice began to advise that licenses under the Burial Act 1857 are no longer thought to be appropriate for many sites for which licenses would previously have been issued." - which dates the change at 28th May. As far as I am aware there was no prior warning, which caused great confusion. The matter has been discussed on Britarch, the BABAO (osteologists) list and here, but no solution has yet been reached.

David - if you check your e-mails on info@bajr you'll find an e-mail dated 5th June about the matter.

D

I dig dead people