| FOGS News Volume XII number 2 vernal equinox 2001 |
|
| Heritage Manipulation |
| THE Scottish Executive has announced it will tidy up QUANGOS in a bill affecting 60 quasi-autonomous |
| non-Governmental organisations, 28 national health service trusts and 15 health boards. A diverse bunch, |
| it includes the Rowett Research & Macaulay Institutes, the Scottish Arts Council, the Deer Commission, |
| Scottish Natural Heritage, National Museums of Scotland, the National Galleries and the Scottish Tourist |
| Board ('Visit Scotland'!) along with Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise, but not Grampian |
| Enterprise(?) Among them is the Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland. |
|
| QUANGOS are non-Governmental, but the Executive seems to have become 'responsible' for them, as |
| non-departmental public bodies (NDPB)- a different animal altogether. Our issue deals almost exclusively |
| with this matter because it would appear ministers have not initiated adequate consultation within professional |
| and academic groups whose opinion is of supreme importance. If bureaucratic systems are implemented |
| wholesale, the work of generations of fine minds may be relegated to the bin in a 'baby-with-bathwater' |
| attempt at civil service rationale. We may not wish to comment on internal Parole Board workings or how |
| the Royal Botanic Garden educates the planet. It is relevant to FOGS, however, that some of our greatest |
| institutions with documentary evidence of our heritage collected over centuries, may be under immense threat. |
| Wishing to go further, the Executive is now looking at all Scots public bodies and the 'role they play in |
| delivering Ministers' policies'. Overall aim is to modernise infrastructure by reduction or initiating appropriate |
| systems, to ensure appointments are 'suitable' and that 'public bodies are properly accountable to Ministers |
| and Parliament.' We all know that we live in the most over-governed small country in the world. Within it, |
| nevertheless, are national treasures, resources and a long history of care for heritage and environment |
| independent of bureaucrats. Our voluntary groups and charitable societies rival any in the English-speaking |
| world. There are descendants of Scots in every nation, many of whom despair of our careless disbanding |
| of tradition, value and history seen in recent government efforts to remake 'cool Britannia'. It seems 'Scottish |
| Ministers want the changes to the framework within which public bodies operate to yield lasting benefits |
| and to command widespread support.' This initial review will not be the last word. The process of dialogue |
| and consultation invites comment by April 12th [address below], but will continue beyond May. Every public |
| body which remains will be subject to a 'modernised, focused rolling review process.' Annex B of the |
| consultation document states 'if the case is not made for the QUANGO, we will abolish it.' One wonders |
| how, for instance, the National Library, legal repository for every work published in Great Britain and Ireland, |
| having an unrivalled Scots collection, will fare. The Ancient Monuments Board has traditionally advised |
| ministers on the exercise of their functions under the Act of 1979. Do ministers now intend a little role reversal |
| to advise the Board on how they should guard monuments? The Royal Commission (RCAHMS) is under |
| most pressure. How will it fit into the category of 'what Ministers want'? It has an unparalleled (& efficient) |
| library in Edinburgh which gives members of the public unlimited access to archive material collected since |
| 1908. Its enormously innovative & important Canmore website is an independent project like Monuments |
| on Record on CD-ROM, published to mark its 90th anniversary. 'Canmore' database attracted 50,000 |
| searches in its first year on the Internet. Recognised as a charity with the Capital Taxes office [SC026749], |
| able to apply for independent funding via Heritage Lottery Fund, the Commission provides a niche for |
| high-profile, irreplaceable archives; but just as NASA and JPL are dependent on amateur astronomers for |
| unusual material, RCAHMS has accepted personal photographic and documentary historical research |
| donated over the years by amateurs. The present much-needed 'Strath Don' survey of Aberdeenshire is |
| possible only because RCAHMS technicians are single-minded, dedicated professionals; not a blade of |
| grass is left unturned nor a single mound unexamined. Instead of this remarkable heritage, are we to receive |
| short shrift from a civil servant with a budget to watch? Will our ancient land once again become amalgamated |
| & manipulated to suit some jargon-filled programme? |
| We invite you to write in support of RCAHMS before April 12th to: |
|
| Scottish Executive, Public Bodies Review Team, |
| Room 318,16 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh EH1 3DN |
| Fax: 0131 244 5077 |
| e-mail: ndpbreview@scotland.gsi.gov.uk |
|
| Resources Relevant to RCAHMS |
| MANY FOGS members will know that the English equivalent of Historic Scotland currently wants to pass |
| through the Lords the Culture & Recreation Bill (H.L.) which would give English Heritage extraordinarily |
| sweeping intellectual property rights relating to ancient monuments & historic buildings, including 'any other |
| intangible assets' - wording of a clause which it seeks to insert into 1983's National Heritage Act; if |
| exercised, such rights could significantly undermine work of independent charities, freelance professionals |
| & owners of such properties. As drafted, it could infringe authors', illustrators' and photographers' rights & |
| undermine legitimate arrangements on intellectual property and other rights. When moved for a second time |
| on 18-01-01, Lord Scott of Foscote, a Law Lord, observed that it seemed to contravene the Human Rights |
| Act, pointing out: 'it surely could not have been intended that the exploitation of intellectual property rights |
| (relating to monuments and historic buildings) should be privately owned rights'. Prehistorians and |
| archaeologists are alarmed that a similar situation might follow north of the border, if the present Scottish |
| Executive Review of Public Bodies succeeds. Among correspondence we have received, Dr PZ Dransart |
| who works within both legislatures gives a most succinct comparison: |
|
| 'Part V of the Culture & Recreation Bill (H.L.) is analogous to the Scottish Executive review. It intends 'to |
| remove anomalies which hamper efficient/effective delivery of public services'. Three new bodies are |
| proposed, designed to be reconstituted as statutory bodies to 'provide the Secretary of State with a basis |
| for making grants'. It also makes changes to the way people are appointed to governing bodies of different |
| museums.As you mentioned, all these issues are interconnected. Independence and organisation of our |
| national museums, libraries and RCAHMS is under threat from such proposals. Itwill dilute professionalism |
| and make bodies less professionally accountable. At present advertisements are placed in the press to |
| invite applications for people to serve on the executive and advisory NDPBs. Paradoxically, the proposals |
| may not even save money as the Scottish Executive will have to appoint more civil servants to replace people |
| who sit on those bodies.' P.Z.Dransart, Univ. of Wales at Lampeter; archaeologist Episcopal Palaces project |
| Fetternear. |
