3rd February 2014, 02:56 PM
I don't personally see a problem with the principle, but can't really see what the advantage to the local tax payer is. In reality 'privatised' services are rarely cheaper than in-house, BUT...it does allow local authorities to remove functions from their books, which government has encouraged them to do since the mid-80s eg rubbish collection, parks and gardens. Most recent trends are to 'trust-asise' functions. This is the way that many library and cultural services are going.
There have been previous examples of outsourcing HER and curatorial functions again going back to the 80s. London has the unique situation where all London boroughs (minus 1 and the City) outsource their curatorial and HER functions to an English Heritage team. Maybe that could be a pattern that other authorities follow in future. Its is also the subject of an ongoing CBA/DCMS consultation.....see the BAJRFed thread Call for Responses on the Future of Local Government Archaeology Services (opened 17th January)
There have been previous examples of outsourcing HER and curatorial functions again going back to the 80s. London has the unique situation where all London boroughs (minus 1 and the City) outsource their curatorial and HER functions to an English Heritage team. Maybe that could be a pattern that other authorities follow in future. Its is also the subject of an ongoing CBA/DCMS consultation.....see the BAJRFed thread Call for Responses on the Future of Local Government Archaeology Services (opened 17th January)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...