Council contractors list and the IFA

[Oxbeast]

Well, I for one am completely confused now. Quoi?

[leic]

At the moment is clearly a breach of employment and human rights law for a curator to specify IFA membership. The government could bring in a licensing scheme as in Ireland but it would only be practical for directing excavations. However, any licensing scheme will always be arbitrary If we brought in a standard similar to the USA where you need an MA to manage even the smallest project I can hear the howls of protest. I don't believe it would make much difference to standards which can only be enforced practically by curators- at the moment some do and some don't. I suppose it would set a base standard which is all you can expect but its main result would be to exclude amateurs from digging. I have come across both incompetent and fraudulent work in my career over the last 30 years and the perpetrators would probably be the fist people to be granted licences. If you award licences (eg an BA or MA plus 3 years experience to direct a major excavation) you have to have a set standard and grant them to anyone who meets them unless you can stand up in court and prove ( very difficult) otherwise. Anyway (and I have a PhD so I am not biased here) some of the best archaeologistsI have worked with are non-graduates. Licensing pot reports - rubbish- everyone has to start somewhere and pot people are getting older and older- just go to a conference.

[peteraf]

Why I said conflict is because part of the process of using that act is an analysis of what is being attempted to see that is not in conflict with existing state legislation of contra to national guidelines. It would also need to be read with HR legislation and EU in mind

[peteraf]

Oxbeast Sorry what bit are you confused with?

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by leic

At the moment is clearly a breach of employment and human rights law for a curator to specify IFA membership

Is it?

I cant see anything in the Human Rights Act that prohibits using qualification as a means of determining suitability for employment or contract.

As for Employment Law, there can be no discrimination on the grounds of qualification, skills or experience providing that such criteria are clearly stated in the job advert.


So maybe it's another law you are thinking of, but its definitely not the Human Rights Act or the (UK) Employment Act...



With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

[peteraf]

Employment law same as per trade union and you may get Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

[1man1desk]

Posted by Stephen:

quote:Councils are not governed by PPG16

Not entirely true.

Councils are required to formulate Local Plan policy and deal with planning applications in line with the most recent published central government guidance. For archaeology, that is PPG16. Any policy that contradicts PPG16 would therefore be open to challenge during the Examination in Public of the relevant Plan, where it would probably be overturned. Even if it did get adopted, it may be open to legal challenge.

Any policy or individual planning decision that goes significantly beyond the requirements of PPG16 would be open to legal challenge on grounds of 'reasonableness'.

Councils don't like legal challenges - they use up a lot of officer time and use up the council tax money to pay lawyers.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[leic]

Specifying IFA membership as compulsory to tender for jobs is a restrictive practice. This is particularly invidious when it is done by someone employed by a council funded by public money. Being a IFA member is not like having an accredited qualification like a degree. There is a problem here even with academic qualifications (and chartered membership would be no different) as many archaeologists don't have degrees in archaeology so a degree is clearly not necessary to practice as an archaeologist which is why most job adverts at least in local government ask for an archaeology degree or equivalent. There is a further point in that it could be seen as an ant-competitive restriction on archaeologists from other EEC countries applying for such tenders. In practice nothing to stop a local government dept from employing the person with a degree and MIFA but the question here is in allowing people to tender. Personally I would like a law which restricts archaeology to those with a PhD and at least 30 years experience but it isn't going to happen.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by peteraf

Employment law same as per trade union and you may get Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

I would suggest that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence' has nothing to do with the activities of the IfA or local authorities employing staff or issuing contracts.

'Employment law same as trade union law' also has me stumped. The IfA is not a trade union, does not it act like a trade union and is not recognised (to the best of my knoweldge) by any local authority as a trade union. Employment law (as I stated earlier) clearly says that it is reaonable to discriminate by reason of qualification, skills or experience providing that such criteria are clearly stated in the job advert.

I suspect that there is no law specifically pertinent to this arrangement other than the appeal court ruling generally referred to as the 'Wednesbury Principles' that is that any discretionary action by a local authority must consider all factors and be patently fair in its application.

As applied to this case it might be considered unfair of a local authority to insist upon membership of the IfA if that excluded any non-member whose qualifications, skills and experience were obviously equal or greater than the level required for IfA membership

But its nothing to do with Trade Unions, Human Rights or employment law and if anyone thinks otherwise they are misinformed.


Afterthought: Oh and by the way add to that European Law as well....

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

[Talisien]

Apologies for any eggs that I am distributing on this matter.

Confusion arises, I believe, in how you regard PPG16. All the PPG documents are guidelines. In other words, what they seek to do is outline processes that achieve, aid or satisfy the planning process - and can give the impression that some aspects are optional; unfortunately, as guidelines, they are not written in legalese and open to misunderstanding/misapplication. They are not, however, protocols or enacted, either under new legislation, primary acts, enabling acts or as statutory instruments amending earlier legislation/schedules etc, issued by the relevant secretary of state (in this case the former Deputy PM's office and now the Dept for Communities and Local Government), and thus not strictly speaking legally 'enforcable'. Satisfying planning specifications are a legal requirement and the inclusion of the assessment of potential archaeological remains as a 'material consideration' is thus brought in and consequently legally 'enforcable'; planning permission can be refused if the aassessment has not be made and or failure to provide the results of an assessment (see Sections 18 to 22 link - http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...ding/ppg16). So although PPG16 is only a guideline, the provisions for which it is used are governed by various pieces of legislation etc.

Returning to the original point, whether the persons actually undertaking the assessment should be members of the IfA, this is not a requirement that can be enforced by the local plannning authority. All the developer needs to do is to ensure they employ a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or consultant (PPG16 - Para 20)

If I remain confused, it's because it's my natural state... :face-huh: