English Heritage is undergoing a thorough investigation into its purpose, its practice, its achievements and even its existence.
That this should be happening is not in itself surprising. The Department of National Heritage, whose money supports EH, have a rolling programme of inquiries into all the bodies they sponsor, to ensure that public money is well spent. It is the timing of the exercise which is odd, since it runs in parallel with the Government's recent Heritage Green Paper (see BA July 1996), and we are told that it intends to take account of matters raised in that consultation. Since the Green Paper is still open to comment, and it will be some months before ministers give their reactions, it is a puzzle how the two exercises are expected to be mutually informing.
Invitations to comment on the DNH review were issued on 19 July, with a request for views by 12 August. 'Or as soon thereafter as possible' the request continues, perhaps recognising the silliness both of the timetable, and of launching a consultation at this time of year.
The review takes place in two phases. The first looks at the relevance of the work done by EH, and whether EH is the best body to do it. The second - which follows ministers' decisions arising from the first - 'will examine how EH is organised and conducts its business'.
Among the questions the Government poses are whether it is necessary for EH's work to be performed at all, or by a public body; whether alternative arrangements for the work might be preferred, including contracting out, privatisation, rationalisation, or transfer to another body; and whether 'in particular there would be merit in separating the conservation and presentation of historic properties in care from the advisory and grant-giving activities'.
The implications of this review for archaeology in England, and possible longer-term repercussions for the rest of Britain, are enormous. EH is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment, providing, in the words of DNH, 'recommendations on what buildings should be listed and sites scheduled, advising Government, local planning authorities, owners and others on works affecting listed buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas. It distributes money provided by the Department for archaeology and conservation grants; it manages a substantial estate of historic properties and monuments . . . and it is a centre of expertise on all aspects of conservation policy and practice.' Wrong choices now could take years to put right.
One question missing from DNH's agenda is whether its own questions address the right issues. In the present climate we should not be surprised at the emphasis on the 'users' of EH's 'services', but we should be very wary of any use of this as the principal yardstick for measurement of EH's effectiveness, since the prime beneficiary of EH's service is surely posterity. In today's marketplace, posterity is not an assertive customer.
DNH might also ask why front-line care of England's heritage is in the hands of a non-executive, mainly advisory agency, whereas elsewhere in the Kingdom such work is undertaken by bodies (like Cadw and Historic Scotland) which remain within Government. EH is independent (said Michael Heseltine when he was creating it) among other reasons so that it can be free to voice opinions of its own, and if necessary argue them robustly to Government. This is actually one of EH's great strengths (see, for example, its stand over Stonehenge).
Part of EH's duty is to champion the historic environment throughout Government; for example to MAFF, DoE, the Highways Agency, and the MoD. The shift of concern away from single fenced-about 'sites' towards prudent management of the landscape as a whole is essential if we are not to see the atomisation of Britain's inheritance and loss of its vital but less spectacular elements. However, this calls for a new kind of conservation culture, reliant not only upon the fairly limited array of inherited statutory controls, but also upon consent, and an ability to define and represent new concepts in ways which command popular under-standing and support.
To champion this in all relevant forums may well be beyond the present ability of EH, particularly after recent cuts. More money is no panacea - but a lack of it doesn't help either, and adequate funding is needed if EH is to speak for posterity with the persuasive clarity that posterity deserves.
Dr Philip Dixon is the President of the CBA
Anyone may write to the review - even though the formal closing date for replies has come and gone. For those wishing to do so, information about the review's scope and terms of reference is available from MJD Keatinge, Department of National Heritage, Heritage Division Room 311, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London SW1Y 5DH.
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996