British Archaeology, no 6, July 1995: Comment

Most people probably think of local government reorganisation as `The Issue that Never Was'. In England, they may be right. All that anxiety, expressed more than once on these pages, about the future for precarious services such as archaeology receded when Sir John Banham, Chairman of the Local Government Commission, decided that most counties would remain after all (he was later sacked for his sensibilities).

Most people, however, forget Scotland. Here, the threat has become reality, and in April next year 32 new unitary authorities take over. Those who remember the poll tax saga will have a sense of deja vu. Once again, Scotland is being used as a testing-ground for an unpopular government policy.

Archaeological services have never been adequate in Scotland, provided as they are in only nine of the 12 regional and island authorities. However, since the publication in January 1994 of NPPG5 - Scotland's equivalent of PPG16 - archaeology has had a fillip, and in those regions where archaeologists contribute to planning matters NPPG5's recommendations are normally implemented.

But it seems unlikely at present that the smaller new authorities will be able to afford or have the will to employ archaeological officers to maintain this crucial input. Seven regions are to become unitary authorities with the same borders, but five will be fragmented. Central, Tayside and Grampian are each to become three unitary authorities, Lothian will become four, and Strathclyde will become an unconscionable twelve new authorities. The smallest of these, East Renfrew, now covers only 86,000 people.

The reasons why fragmentation threatens archaeology are well known, but can bear repeating. NPPG5, like PPG16, recommends that all planning departments in<%0> Scotland have access to archaeological advice and a Sites and Monuments Record, but there is no statutory requirement that appropriate staff are employed. Small rural areas, with a low budget base but full of archaeology, lose the chance of subsidy from the richer cities of a region. The process of reorganisation itself costs money, which has to be found from existing budgets. And the effect of all this? Regional SMRs, developed over the past 20 years, face fragmentation or destruction.

Three possibilities present themselves - that larger local authorities retain an archaeological service which will also be available to other nearby but smaller councils; that a number of small authorities club together to pay for an umbrella service; or (most disastrously) that some authorities remove archaeology from their responsibility, purchasing professional advice only on those rare occasions when the law requires it, such as over scheduled monuments. In that case, the protection afforded to the majority of archaeological sites through development control would be seriously compromised.

Even though there is less than a year to go, no decisions on structures have yet been taken. Councillors were elected in April, and chief executives are only now being appointed. Soon we will have a frantic round of momentous decision-making. Those of us keen to influence decisions will only have one chance to get it right.

The threat is perhaps greatest in areas that do not inherit a pre-existing service - Tayside, Lothian and the Western Isles. Until now, Historic Scotland has provided support and advice in these areas but has made it clear that direct advice will not be provided under the new structure. Historic Scotland is itself pressed for resources; but it, and its paymaster the Scottish Office, must remain the ultimate safeguard for archaeological protection. They must not allow the worst to happen.

So what is to be done? A concerted effort from the archaeological community in Scotland, and indeed in Britain as a whole, to persuade Scottish councils of the importance and fragility of archaeology can no doubt make a difference. Members of local societies and other interested people should be mobilised into the lobbies. An appeal to the potential financial benefits of proper archaeological conservation - through tourism - will doubtless work as well as an appeal to councillors' better instincts.

Patrick Begg is Director of the Council for Scottish Archaeology