§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.42 pm§ Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds)May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of speaking this evening, and may I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being present to reply to the debate.
In my constituency there is an environmentally sensitive area called Breckland, which was densely populated in prehistoric times. Archaeologists have unearthed numerous objects from the Roman and Saxon periods. Sadly, however, an unknown number of valuable objects have been removed from the area via the use of metal detectors. Many of my constituents have expressed their alarm to me that much of our unique local and national heritage has disappeared unrecorded and illegally. Publicity has rightly been accorded to the valiant efforts of my constituent, Mr. John Browning, to retrieve objects removed from his farm at Icklingham. His costs in doing so have exceeded £100,000.
It would be instructive to consider the succession of events surrounding the illegal removal and exportation of the Icklingham bronzes, as they have become known. In 1982, rumours reached the Suffolk constabulary that a valuable find had been dug up on Mr. Browning's farm, and an investigation was undertaken. In 1983, my constituent was informed that an important hoard had been removed from his farm, coupled with a warning from the police not to approach illicit metal detectorists as they could be violent. Nine years ago, Thames Television produced a documentary showing pictures of pagan temple bronzes apparently removed from Icklingham. In 1985, an archaeologist wrote to the Suffolk archaeological unit to say that the actual find spot and identification of the hoard had been confirmed by the thieving finders. Between 1980 and 1993, 13 illicit treasure hunters were caught and prosecuted—two for assaulting police officers.
The bronzes were traced to the United States. In 1990, the Crown Prosecution Service informed the police, who believed that they had a strong case, that they were unable to proceed with prosecutions and no extradition order would be given. Although the present owners of the bronzes indicated that they would bequeath the bronzes to the British museum, litigation has clouded their future. The 16 or more Romano-British bronzes date from the first or second century BC and have been valued at £1.5 million.
My constituent's farm covers a substantial Roman settlement. In 1974, the site was scheduled as an ancient monument. My concern and that of Mr. Browning and bodies such as the Society of Antiquaries is that this episode highlights weaknesses in the law and voluntary codes designed to stop the illegal looting and export of cultural property. Despite our having extradition arrangements for criminals with the United States, it is clear that there is no adequate mechanism for the seizure and return of cultural property that is patently important to our national heritage.
Before exploring that further, I commend to the House the excellent work done by the Suffolk constabulary in precisely laying out appropriate guidelines which could well be copied by other police forces. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that amateur metal detecting is a legitimate hobby. Its governing body is the National 945 Council for Metal Detecting. Amateur metal detecting has greatly added to our body of knowledge of objects of historic importance However, only the failure to report treasure trove carries legal sanction, and the decision to report other finds is that of the finder and/or landowner. The national council prepared a code of conduct which reflects sensitivity to the landowner, the country way of life and the objects themselves.
The Suffolk constabulary has made it clear that it is unlawful to search in a protected site such as that of Mr. Browning without obtaining permission from the landowner and the Secretary of State via English Heritage. On scheduled ancient monuments, no one may use a metal detector without such prior consent. Of course, treasure trove, largely gold and silver objects, belong to the Crown and a failure to report involves a criminal offence. I should add that any possible cash reward goes to the finder, not the landowners, unless they are personally involved in the finding.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the Select Committee on National Heritage took evidence on the export of works of art one year ago, flowing from the EC draft directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from a member state and draft regulations on the export of cultural goods. I quote from the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the Council of British Archaeology:
National protection of archaeological objects logically begins with a system for the routine reporting, recording and conservation of finds. Such a system is commonplace throughout the world. Sadly, there is no such system in this country. Treasure trove is all that we have; and that mechanism is an absurd and ineffectual anachronism. It protects no more than a fraction of the minuscule element of objects made of silver or gold. In this, field also, the CBA has been, for more than a quarter of a century, pressing for legal reform. However, there has been no response from government and nothing has yet been achieved.In evidence to the Committee, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn specifically alluded to the Icklingham bronzes as a glaring example of looting and illegal exportation.I fully accept that London must remain the premier art market in the world, generating perhaps between £3 billion and £3.5 billion annually. But however we address the problem of cultural objects, that should not involve a costly and ineffective monitoring process that could either drive the art market abroad or enlarge the black market in cultural objects. As 90 per cent. of all finds are not covered by the term treasure trove, it is clear that a considerable part of our national heritage disappears into the black market or goes abroad via sale rooms every year. The issue is clear. The Icklingham horde has dramatically highlighted the problem. Clearly, our archaeological inheritance is being jeopardised, yet is some new legally enforceable protection warranted?
There is national inconsistency in the treatment of this matter. In Scotland any object of archaeological interest dug up must be registered, with the Crown exercising the right to claim it, subject to compensation. Only treasure trove is afforded similar treatment in England and Wales. However, it is arguable that in practice the problem is more manageable in Scotland. Registration of all objects at least 100 years old could be enshrined in law, but the process could potentially be oppressively bureaucratic. At least then, however, we might be able to measure more precisely the true breadth and depth of our inheritance. Any registration could, for example, be accompanied by the presentation of a certified document which may well 946 enhance the object's saleroom attractiveness in due course. To make this work, finders would be obliged to report and register their discoveries. I shall return to this point and examine its practicality.
What is certain is that all interested parties are unhappy with the present situation. There is basically a similarity of view from the three relevant heritage bodies—the Council for British Archaeology, the Museums Association and the Society of Antiquaries. There is also a clear recognition that dealers in antiquities, given the importance of the London art market, should feel able to operate under any new code or statutory provision. Any tightening should not jeopardise their legitimate business activities.
I have already mentioned the violent behaviour of illegal metal detectorists, which is a source of embarrassment to the National Council of Metal Detecting. Regrettably, the very portability of certain antiquities means that they are an easy way of laundering drugs money across the globe. Some now believe it important that all metal detectors should be licensed. This could help the police to protect scheduled ancient monuments more effectively. Again, however, this may not adequately prevent illegal activity. The previous licensing system was a failure.
One thing is crystal clear: legislation is long overdue to abolish market overt. This is the ridiculous situation whereby in long-established markets, such as Bermondsey, good title will be awarded to the buyer of goods purchased between sunrise and sunset, even if stolen. This is taking national eccentricity to an unwelcome extreme and simply provides a conduit for the alarming upsurge in burglary in Britain of all objects.
What is clear is that there is an increasing revulsion against the looting of cultural objects in the United States, the destination of so many stolen items. In January this year, the New York Times highlighted a number of repatriations of dubiously acquired cultural objects. This often flows from settlements of law suits and negotiations, and American museums are now more sensitive to this problem.
Many people believe that it is Britain's failure to sign up to the UNESCO convention on cultural property that has exacerbated our particular problem. Some believe that our failure to ratify has meant that London is the clearing house for stolen artefacts. It is true that the UNESCO convention has attempted to establish a framework to curb looting and the illicit trade in antiquities. But the experience of the United States is instructive; legislation was implemented in 1983 to enable it to become a full partner in the UNESCO covenant. Undoubtedly, pre-Colombian artefacts have been substantially stopped from entering the United States, but the market has simply moved elsewhere. There is no clear unanimity that the UNESCO convention will substantially address the issue of the continuing denuding of our own national heritage.
On 15 December the EC Council directive on the return of cultural objects comes into force. This seeks to allow a requesting member state to apply to another member state for the return of an illegally exported, important, cultural object. The directive has been widely welcomed. It does not apply outside the EC.
I am, however, encouraged by the fact that UNIDROIT, an intergovernmental organisation based in Rome, is seeking to draft codes that would harmonise different countries' laws on the illegal traffic in cultural objects. At 947 an international level, the appalling episode of the Icklingham bronzes must be addressed as an object lesson in what can go wrong.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for sending to me the UNIDROIT draft proposals, which simplify the UNESCO convention. I await with interest to learn how much progress has been made in the negotiations aimed at achieving a consensus. It will be extremely useful and important to obtain an international consensus on the illicit trade in cultural objects. Nevertheless, we must return to the present-day situation at home.
There have been calls from distinguished heritage organisations for a comprehensive recording and registering process for cultural objects. Perhaps the narrow definition of treasure trove could be expanded. Obviously there is a balance to be struck. Compulsory reporting of such objects may prove to be expensive and complicated. That may put immense pressure on museums' resources and storage space. Such a process may increase avoidance of the rules. Perhaps, as a compromise, there could be a greater range and/or value limit of items that would require registration so that at least the most important finds would be registered. It would need to be made clear to finders how such objects could be inspected and appropriate advice given. Perhaps also there could be actual incentives to report interesting finds.
All that would require a heightened level of public awareness of the responsibilities of finders to our archaeological inheritance—in effect, an educational process. As a nation, we rejoice in our heritage in a way which makes our civilisation special. Portable antiquities are part of our inheritance, which is irreplaceable if lost. I am pleased that active discussions are under way between the Department of National Heritage and Britain's relevant heritage organisations.
In raising this issue I hope that, at minimum, the reward to my constituent, who has so valiantly fought for justice, with dedication and perseverance—and at great personal cost—will be that the disgraceful saga of the Icklingham bronzes will never, ever be repeated.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for raising the subject of the registration and export of antiquities. I hope that my hon. Friend, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if I deliver my speech at a rather faster pace than normal because it is such an important subject and I have a great deal to say to my hon. Friend.
The issue is a fascinating and complex issue which is of great importance for archaeological policy. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the Icklingham case, in his constituency, raises issues about the protection of our archaeological heritage which must be a matter of real concern. I cannot hope to deal with every aspect of those issues, but I should like to comment on some of the very interesting points that my hon. Friend has raised.
This is, incidentally, a subject which clearly demonstrates the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in deciding to create the new Department of National Heritage. Until last year, responsibilities were 948 spread across three Whitehall Departments: treasure trove rested with the Treasury; the export of works of art with the Department of Trade and Industry; and general policy for portable archaeological finds with the Department of the Environment. That situation created serious obstacles to coherent policy making. Now that all those responsibilities have been brought together in one Department, we have a new opportunity to address the issues in a comprehensive way. I hope that I will be able to convince my hon. Friend that we are making a start on this, though there is much still to be done.
I will not repeat the details which my hon. Friend gave of the case of the Icklingham bronzes. That saga has involved a great deal of worry, effort and expense for my hon. Friend's constituent, and well illustrates some of the problems that we need to address. I will give a brief outline of the existing arrangements for the protection of archaeological sites and finds, and indicate where we see a need for further action.
At present the protection afforded by the law varies according to whether or not a site is scheduled, and whether or not a find is classed as treasure trove. I have a great deal to say about treasure trove, but I sh all leave it to the end and, if I have time, I shall refer to it. I know that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about it anyway.
The law does, of course, provide a degree of protection for all scheduled archaeological sites and monuments. There are about 14,000 scheduled sites in England. It is an offence to remove any object from a scheduled site by the use of a metal detector without permission. We intend to strengthen the legal protection for scheduled sites at the next opportunity by prohibiting unauthorised removal of objects by whatever means they are found, by widening the definition of "damaged" and "archaeological site" and by providing that ignorance is no defence against a charge of damage. Those steps will have added importance as the number of scheduled sites is doubled over the next 10 years under English Heritage's monument protection programme.
For the many thousands of unscheduled archaeological sites, protection is less adequate. Taking items of value from someone else's land is theft and will usually involve trespass as well. There is therefore scope for action to be taken against illegal treasure hunters under both the civil and criminal law. Some police forces work closely with local landowners and farmers, and with the local museums service, to ensure that as effective action as possible is taken against illegal activity. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the excellent work of the Norfolk and Suffolk police; other forces, such as Surrey, are also very active. But there are often real practical difficulties for the police, and for landowners, in securing convictions: partly because treasure hunting so often takes place at very remote sites, and in darkness; and partly because, once objects are removed from a site, it is difficult to demonstrate their provenance if their very existence was previously unknown. The Icklingham case sadly demonstrates that point very clearly.
Some leading archaeological bodies have argued for a system of compulsory registration of all archaeological finds, or for compulsory licensing of metal detectors. Archaeologists often point to the very different situation in Scotland, where treasure trove legislation effectively applies to all artefacts over 100 years old whose ownership is unknown.
949 There are differing views on that issue, even within the archaeological world. I have some reservations as to whether compulsory registration of finds, or licensing of treasure hunters, is the right way forward at this stage. The situation in England is very different from that in Scotland: there, the number of archaeological finds is much smaller than in England—probably fewer than in East Anglia alone —and the expectations of treasure hunters are coloured by the fact that the requirement to report finds has been part of Scottish law for hundreds of years. To seek to impose compulsory registration in England, in the face of likely opposition from metal detectorists and others, would present the police with an impossible task and risk bringing the law into disrepute. Many museums would also face considerable resource problems in handling reported finds, let alone finding the money to buy them. The system could become discredited if reporting had no outcome of real practical benefit to archaeological research.
As I have already mentioned, the Government intend to strengthen legal protection for scheduled sites. Reform of treasure trove legislation may also offer the opportunity to bring some further limited categories of finds within the scope of the reporting requirements. Beyond that, I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to see the process initially as one of education, persuasion and reassurance rather than as one where a change in the law can be effective overnight. What is needed is a change in public attitudes and understanding, rather similar to the changes which have taken place in other areas—for instance, in relation to the theft of birds' eggs from nests and the destructive picking of wild flowers. At this stage, I see little point in introducing a compulsory system that could easily prove to be both bureaucratic and largely ineffectual.
We intend to publish a public discussion paper on the whole issue of portable archaeological finds in the first half of 1994. Our current view is that the best way forward now may lie in the formulation of a voluntary code of practice that has the support not only of the archaeological and museum communities but of bodies representing the treasure hunters themselves. Those who join national organisations probably act responsibly in any case, for the most part, but the more we can get agreement among all parties on a voluntary basis of reporting, perhaps by offering a measure of reassurance on confidential reporting for instance, the more likely we are to make progress with this difficult issue. A code of practice could, at any rate, provide a starting point. But we shall want to consider all aspects of the issue in the light of responses before finally deciding on the way ahead.
The UK's non-ratification of the 1970 UNESCO convention has often been mentioned in relation to the Icklingham bronzes; but ratification of that convention would not have helped in their recovery. It is a public law convention that deals with the illicit removal and subsequent recovery of publicly owned objects. It does not apply, therefore, to archaeological objects that have been illicitly removed in the United Kingdom, as here the ownership of such objects does not rest with the state.
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the potential loss to the United Kingdom by export of important archaeological material. As the House knows, an export licence is required for any archaeological object recovered from the soil in the United Kingdom or from our territorial waters. That applies regardless of the monetary value of an individual item, the identity of the owner or the item's export destination.
950 It is for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to enforce licensing controls at ports—and it does so on a wide range of goods whose export is either prohibited or restricted. However, with the volume of trade and passengers, those controls must of necessity be highly selective. Effective targeting greatly depends on the timely availability of information, but evidence of breaches of export restrictions is actively pursued.
The completion of the single market has meant the removal of a customs presence at internal borders but, as allowed for under the treaty of Rome, we have adopted additional measures of protection for cultural objects. A Council regulation on exports to destinations outside the Community has been in operation since 1 April, and a complementary directive will soon be in place.
The directive will provide a mechanism for one member state to request the return of a "national treasure" from another member state where the national treasure has been unlawfully removed from the first member state. That includes any archaeological object, irrespective of its monetary value, provided that it is a national treasure. In the United Kingdom, a "national treasure" would be an object declared to be of Waverley standard before or after its unlawful removal.
We aim at implementing the directive in United Kingdom law by mid-December, and are currently undertaking public consultation on the way in which we intend to undertake that implementation.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, on the wider international front we have been actively participating in discussions of a draft UNIDROIT convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. That is an innovative attempt to address the public law provisions of the 1970 UNESCO convention and to take some of those concepts into private law. Again, it would apply to archaeological material, although, by its nature, evidence of the date and place of clandestine removal will always be a problem.
I cannot anticipate whether the United Kingdom will become a signatory to the UNIDROIT convention, but we have been working constructively with other countries participating in those discussions. As with the Community directive, we hope that we can achieve a convention that could be a mutually acceptable compromise to as many states as possible. We await a revised draft, following a meeting of national experts that took place in Rome at the end of last month and the beginning of this month.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are well aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention and are addressing the issues energetically. We are examining the possibility of reforming the law of treasure trove, and intend to consult publicly early next year on the possibility of introducing a voluntary code of practice for other portable archaeological finds. We are fully involved in international efforts to regulate trade in antiquities and the problem of illegal exports. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friend the new Department's determination to get to grips with the issues without delay.
The law of treasure trove is fascinating. Its origins can be traced to at least the 11th century. Essentially, finds of gold or silver objects, wherever found, must be reported to the coroner. If he confirms that they are treasure trove, the find is the property of the Crown. The practical effect of that now is that national and local museums are given the opportunity to acquire the find. If they want to do so, they 951 are required to pay the full market value to the finder. If they do not, the finder is free to keep the treasure or to sell it, as he or she wishes.
Within its limits, that system can work well. It provides a mechanism whereby responsible treasure seekers can report their finds without fear of financial loss. They know that if a museum decides to acquire the find a fair market price will be paid. It is of course crucial that finders continue to have confidence that ex gratia awards reflect full market value. The fact that they have that confidence reflects great credit on the treasure trove reviewing committee, which has the difficult task of making a fair and independent valuation of whatever has been found.
But treasure trove has severe shortcomings in its present form. It relates only to objects with a substantial gold or silver content, reflecting its origins as a means of raising revenue for the Crown rather than furthering archaeological research. Even when objects of base metal are found 952 closely associated with gold and silver objects, they cannot be declared treasure trove, whatever their potential archaeological importance, and even gold and silver objects are treasure trove only if they were deliberately hidden with the intention of later recovery—a point that may be virtually impossible to decide after 2,000 years or more.
We recognise these inadequacies and are considering proposals for a private Member's Bill to reform the present law—that is a thought for my hon. Friend—put forward by Lord Perth and the Surrey Archaeological Society, with support from the British museum. As my right hon. Friend made clear to the sponsors of the Bill earlier this year, we felt unable to support some of their original proposals, but detailed discussions are now under way and I certainly hope that it will be possible for us to give our support to a modified package before long.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve midnight.