British Archaeology, no 19, November 1996: Comment

Opposing the ruin of all we stand for

`Among the likely consequences of the Government's planned upheaval of local government, not the least disturbing is the effect this may have on the conservation of historic buildings, archaeology, and public involvement with the past. Just at the point when archaeology in local government is coming of age, and a structure is being establish that works, a disaster may be on its way.'

Bedfordshire has an integrated heritage conservation service which provides specialist advice on listed buildings and archaeology, and a comprehensive Sites and Monuments Record. The service has been built up over several decades. By general consent it is one the best in the country. The forthcoming damage is de-plorable not simply because it will substitute minimalism for excellence, but because Bedfordshire has been a metaphor for everything that could be good about local government archaeology - an example to which others could aspire.

As if this were not enough, crisis is looming at national as well as local level. English Heritage is already having to contend with a funding reduction amounting to some UKP40 million over the next four years. This could get worse - the Budget is only a few weeks away, and there are rumours that the forthcoming Public Expenditure Settlement will be one of the toughest ever. Just at the moment when support and advocacy for local heritage services is needed most, English Heritage, the Government's advisor on heritage conservation in England, may itself have its back against the wall.

Apologists for this cultural delinquency have developed a vocabulary of euphemisms with which to excuse it. Too much fat . . . downsizing . . . better value for money . . . more cost-effective delivery of services. You've heard the words before, and there may be occasions where they apply. But not here, where the language of misapplied accountancy means the very opposite of what it professes. For `better value for money' read `worse', and for `more cost effective' read `less'. Expertise of the kind which is about to be lost cannot be turned on and off like a tap, and in due course the effects of its absence will work through to the harm of archaeological sites, landscapes and buildings. That harm will be irreversible.

The title of the Government's recent Green Paper, Protecting our Heritage, thus has an increasingly hollow ring. Ministers and officials in the Department of National Heritage will now be reading responses to that consultation document. They should reflect that it is pusillanimous for them to be recommending increased heritage responsibilities for local government when some of the very organisations that would provide them are now collapsing.

What can any of us do? At first sight, in the short term, not a lot. Bedfordshire's cuts are decided, others are in the pipeline, and if Mrs Bottomley and Mr Gummer, the Secretaries of State for National Heritage and the Environment, are unable to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Britain's cultural inheritance is worth caring for properly, it seems unlikely that an eleventh-hour letter from you or me will succeed where they have failed.

Doing nothing, however, is not an option. Most people join the CBA, county and local archaeological societies because they care about Britain's historic environ-ment, and the time has come to give voice to that concern in a way, on a scale, and with a focused passion we have never managed before. Doing that will be difficult; not to do it would be unforgiveable. Details of our campaign will be announced in due course.

Meanwhile, the next general meeting of the CBA will be on 27 February 1997 (the time and venue will be announced in Briefing). Please try to come. All the signs are that it will be the most important meeting in our 52 year history.

Richard Morris is the Director of the CBA