HL Deb 20 April 1994 vol 554 cc234-58

5.51 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 (Vesting of treasure in Crown):

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("(1)") to ("in") in line 8 and insert ("Treasure found in any place after the commencement of this section vests, subject to subsection (1A)—

  1. (a) if the place is a place for which there is a franchisee,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the most part it will be for the convenience of the House if we group by clauses the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and myself and discuss them together.

Before we proceed any further I should like to pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsman. Noble Lords will notice that there are a considerable number of amendments. Broadly speaking, the earlier draft included what we proposed, but that has now been put into much better words. I want to stress the debt of gratitude that we owe to the draftsman.

I shall speak to the first group of amendments under Clause 1 together. They are largely drafting amendments or amendments dealing with necessary technical details. The broad effect of Clause 1 remains as it was: treasure trove is abolished and a new, enlarged concept of treasure is introduced, the scope of which is defined in Clause 2, and provision is made for the vesting of treasure in the Crown and in franchisees as appropriate.

Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are purely drafting amendments. Amendment No. 2 moves the provision protecting certain parties' rights from Clause 2 to Clause 1. It fits more appropriately as a restriction on the rights of the Crown and franchisees. This is the provision which ensures that treasure does not vest in the Crown if someone can show that he or she was its owner before it was lost or hidden or is the successor in title to that owner.

Amendment No. 5 substitutes the new rights in treasure for old rights in treasure trove, provides that treasure, like treasure trove, is to be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; and makes certain technical changes to the definition of franchisees, most notably by making specific mention of the Duke of Cornwall. This is necessary for purely historical reasons concerned with the origins of the Duchy's right to treasure trove. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, perhaps at this point it would be helpful if I were to say a brief word about the Government's general position on the Bill.

Your Lordships will recall that we felt unable to support the Bill at Second Reading but made clear at Committee stage that we would reconsider our position in the light of the strong support which the Bill received from all sides of the House and the amendments moved at Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which in our view made considerable improvements to the Bill as introduced.

We have now reconsidered the Bill in the light of today's amendments. As will be clear from the Marshalled List, we have concluded that the Bill, with certain further changes, deserves the Government's support. I am delighted that we have been able to reach that conclusion. It is a tribute to the determination and persistence of the noble Earl and his colleagues that we have co-operated so well together. I should also like to join him in his kind remarks about the parliamentary draftsman and officials, who have worked extremely hard and of whom we are very appreciative.

The Bill as it now stands, and as we propose that it should be amended, I believe offers the best possibility of significant improvements in the present law of treasure trove. However, I should make clear, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, that the Government's support is not a guarantee that the Bill will be enacted. At this stage in the Session the time available for Private Members' business in another place is very limited. This Bill will have to take its chance there with other business. Nevertheless, I hope that by the end of the evening we shall have a Bill which will command wide support and will therefore have good prospects of a successful passage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, at end insert: ("(1A) The following interests and rights in or over any object to which subsection (1) applies shall have priority, so far as they have not been abandoned, over the interest that vests under that subsection, that is to say—

  1. (a) the interests and rights subsisting immediately before that object was hidden, lost or otherwise left in the place 236 where it was found or, if it was disturbed or removed before being found, in the place where it was before being disturbed or removed, and
  2. (b) any interest or right deriving from any of those interests or rights.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Perth moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("property") and insert ("treasure"). Page 1, line 13, leave out ("property") and insert ("treasure").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 14 leave out from first ("the") to end of line 15 and insert ("treasure was lost, was buried in a grave or was abandoned. (3A) Property vesting in the Crown under this section shall be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown to which section 1 of the Civil List Act 1952 applies (surrender of hereditary revenues to the Exchequer) and may be transferred to any person, or otherwise disposed of, in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State. (3B) Neither the Crown nor the franchisee for any place shall have any interest or right in or over any treasure trove found after the commencement of this section except in accordance with this section. (3C) References in this section to the franchisee for any place are references, as the case may require—

  1. (a) to any person who immediately before the commencement of this section was, in relation to that place, the franchisee of the Crown in right of treasure trove; or
  2. (b) to any person who (apart from this Act) would for the time being be entitled, as successor in title, to the rights as franchisee in right of treasure trove of the person mentioned in paragraph (a);
and for the purposes of this subsection it is as a franchisee in right of treasure trove that the Duke of Cornwall is to be treated as having enjoyed all the rights to treasure trove belonging, immediately before the commencement of this section, to the Duchy of Cornwall.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Property which is treasure for the purposes of section 1]:

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 13: Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 23 and insert: ("The objects which, if found after the commencement of section 1, are treasure for the purposes of this Act are the following—

  1. (a) any coin which is at least 300 years old when found and is part of the same find as one or more other coins any of which is at least 300 years old at that time,
  2. (b) any object (not being a coin) which is at least 200 years old when found and has a metallic content at least 5 per cent. by weight of which is precious metal,").
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("(or may reasonably be assumed to be)"). Page 1, line 26, leave out from ("found") to end of line 11 on page 2 and insert: (1 A) For the purposes of this section where an object is found by any person, that object is part of the same find as another object—
  1. (a) if it is found together in the same place with the other object, or
  2. (b) if it had previously been hidden, lost or otherwise left together in the same place with the other object.
 (1B) In any proceedings in which the question arises whether any object found after the commencement of section 1 is or was treasure—
  1. (a) any coin or other object that could reasonably be taken to be, or to be more than, a certain age shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to be at least that old; and
  2. (b) objects found in circumstances which may reasonably be taken to indicate that they have been together in the same place at any time before being found shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been hidden, lost or otherwise left together in the same place.
(1C) An object is not treasure for the purposes of this Act if it is comprised in any wreck (within the meaning of Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894)."). Page 2, line 14, leave out first ("or"). Page 2, line 16, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument"). Page 2, line 17, leave out ("section 1") and insert ("this Act"). Page 2, line 22, at end insert: Page 2, line 23, leave out from ("both)") to end of line 25.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I propose to move Amendment No. 6 and the other amendments to Clause 2—Amendments Nos. 7 to 13—en bloc.

First, I should like to say how much I welcome the statement just made by my noble friend the Minister that the Bill will soon be in a form in which it can receive the support of the Government. That is a successful and significant step forward.

I should also like to pay tribute to the work which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has put into the Bill. We realise that it is his wisdom and persistence which has brought the Bill to this point. All of us in the House very much applaud his enterprise in that respect.

The clause is important because it defines the scope of the new concept of treasure. The main features of the definition in the unamended Bill are retained, but with one or two significant modifications.

First, one of the principal aims of the Bill is to secure the reporting and vesting of all objects which are comprised in the same archaeological find, the same archaeological context, not just those objects which contain precious metal. For instance, the pottery container which contains a hoard of coins may be of great archaeological significance and should be part of the find. The provision is retained, but the draftsman has now expressed it in terms of coins which are "part of the same find" rather than "part of a series". It is perhaps a minor clarification.

Secondly, there are some significant changes in the way in which coins are treated. Under the Bill's original proposals, any coin, no matter how new, would have been treasure if it were found with other coins or other treasure provided that the coins contained at least 0.5 per cent. of gold or silver. But that would have presented a problem for finders. It is not easy to ascertain the precise percentage composition of finds without scientific analysis. There would also have been a risk that museums would be swamped by relatively modern coins. The proposal now is to remove the requirement for any precious metal content in coins, but instead to introduce a requirement that those coins must be at least 300 years old to qualify as treasure. In that way important finds of coins, including significant hoards, of bronze coins, for instance—Roman bronze coins or whatever —will be treasure and will require reporting.

Amendment No. 8 does a number of significant things. First, it provides that any object which would have previously been treasure trove but does not fall into the categories as defined in earlier parts, will nevertheless qualify as treasure. The most common instance of that might be single gold coins found in isolation, such as the Celtic gold stater, or something of that kind.

Secondly, the amendment sets out to clarify the position of objects which are part of the same find by providing that, where a number of objects are found over a period of time, they shall all fall within the definition of treasure including those which would not have qualified as treasure but for the earlier or subsequent finds of precious materials. Those points are set out in the new Section (1A) in the proposed amendment.

Finally, Amendment No. 8 provides in new Section (1B) that finds shall be presumed to be as old as they appear to be unless there is evidence to the contrary. At first sight that might seem an arcane point. However, the issue is essentially one of burden of proof. If the finds appear to be old, they will be accepted as old unless someone can demonstrate a case to the contrary. I hope that noble Lords will agree that in practical terms that is appropriate.

In relation to burden of proof, new Section (1B) (b) refers to, objects found in circumstances which may reasonably be taken to indicate that they have been together in the same place". In such a case they will be deemed to constitute a find. In other words, once again the burden of proof is that if they appear to have been lost together or buried together, they will be deemed a single find for the purposes of the Bill.

One other point about Amendment No. 8 deserves mention. Paragraph (d) of the original Bill provided that any object found with treasure should itself be classified as treasure. Amendment No. 8 substitutes for the word "object" the word "artefact". That will obviously include the full range of man-made objects such as pottery or ornaments, or, for instance, cut gemstones; but it will not include natural objects. Nor will it include human remains. There is a view that it would be inappropriate to include those within the scope of treasure.

There may yet be one or two areas for concern. Under the amendment, uncut gemstones or pearls, for instance, or finds of unmodified amber would not be classified as treasure. I have a fleeting concern on that point. But noble Lords will note that the Secretary of State's power to extend the definition of treasure by order in subsection (5) of the clause is not restricted. Therefore small matters relating to finds of pearls, amber, or uncut precious stones, could be dealt with in that way.

The other amendments to the clause are either technical or self-explanatory. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I wish to draw attention to one point. At paragraph (b), Amendment No. 6 refers to 200 years. I must confess that I am not entirely happy with the period of 200 years. The year 1794 is such a short time ago—it is almost within memory! If one refers back, let us say, 300 years to 1694 one has a quite different class of objects.

I mention that at this point so that between now and Third Reading we may consider whether to change the figure from 200 to 300.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I support the noble Earl for this reason. If we compare paragraphs (a) and (b) in Amendment No. 6, there are advantages in applying the same criterion to the type of objects which we find under each of those paragraphs. I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend Lady Trumpington will be so kind as to consider the advantage of consistency.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, we shall have a jolly good look at the issue and, if necessary, bring it back at Third Reading.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 3 [Extension of jurisdiction of coroners]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 14: Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:

Jurisdiction of coroners

(".—(1) The jurisdiction of coroners which is referred to in section 30 of the Coroners Act 1988 (treasure trove)—

  1. (a) shall be exercisable for the purposes of this Act in relation to any objects appearing to be treasure to which section 1 applies; but
  2. (b) shall cease, in relation to anything found after the commencement of that section, to be exercisable for the purposes of the law relating to treasure trove;
and that Act and anything saved by virtue of section 36(5) of that Act (saving for existing law and practice etc.) shall have effect accordingly.

(2) An inquest held by virtue of this section shall be held without a jury.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. In the Bill as it stands, Clauses 3 and 6 deal in slightly different ways with the jurisdiction in relation to treasure which coroners will have when the Bill is passed. From the point of view of drafting and presentation, it is obviously desirable that the provision should be in one clause rather than two—that is, the new Clause 3. It enables us to get rid of the original Clause 6.

The effect is to ensure that coroners have jurisdiction to conduct inquests—

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive my intervening. Does he speak to Amendment No. 29 as well as to Amendment No. 14?

Lord Renton

My Lords, yes. Amendment No. 29 gets rid of Clause 6. I am most grateful to my noble friend.

Perhaps I may state this again. The combined effect, and the result of the new clause, will be to ensure that coroners have jurisdiction to conduct inquests into treasure, and that they do so without juries. We discussed the matter briefly at Committee stage. There is no reason for me to go into it again. It is agreed by both sides of the House. The amendments would make no change in the role envisaged for coroners.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Duty of finder of treasure to notify coroner]:

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 15: Page 2 line 28, leave out from ("(1)") to ("to") in line 40 and insert: ("A person who has found any object in any place and believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that the object is treasure shall notify the find to the coroner for the district in which the find was made or, where the office of coroner for that district is vacant, to the person acting as coroner for that district. (2) Subject to subsection (4), notification for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be given before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day after the making of the find or (if later) with the day on which the person who has made the find first believes or has reasonable grounds for believing that the object is treasure. (3) Any person who fails without reasonable excuse").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 4 imposes a duty on the finder to notify the coroner of his or her find. Breach of that duty is a criminal offence. The duty to report is retained in the amendment, but it is expressed rather differently from the previous wording.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but am I right in thinking that the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 15 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17?

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the answer is yes. The duty to report is retained in this amendment, though in somewhat different terms from those that we had earlier. First, the period within which notification should be given is reduced to 14 days as against four weeks. Secondly, the requirement for a "wilful failure" to report is replaced by a defence of "reasonable excuse". This is a broader concept which recognises that an offence might be committed, for example, by sheer negligence as well as by deliberate wilfulness or dishonesty. We believe that it is an improvement in the expression of the duty.

Some noble Lords may feel that to allow 14 days for reporting finds is over-generous and may result in the loss of important archaeological evidence. We have thought about that a great deal, but what is at issue here is a criminal offence. For that we must have a definite objective time limit. To say "as soon as is practicable" in the Bill would be too imprecise. But the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State in Clause 9 can, of course, stress the need for early reporting and make clear that it will be taken into account in assessing rewards to finders. I believe that the last sentence is of the greatest importance. I beg to move.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16: Line 3, after ("shall") insert ("as soon as is reasonably practicable").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are intended to supplement Amendment No. 15 which I fully support. The noble Earl has amply outlined the need for an offence of that kind. However, my Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 arise from a real anxiety relating to the purposes of the Bill. Those purposes were well referred to in a speech at Committee stage or Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who emphasised the importance of retaining for the nation not only the objects found but information about them which contributes an essential part of the fabric of our nation's history.

I believe that some archaeologists and others will ask themselves in relation to the Bill: "Is there a risk that we are simply creating a treasure hunter's charter? Are we risking encouraging treasure hunting? Are we risking encouraging treasure hunters and landowners to enter into agreements and then to proceed to conduct treasure hunts and excavate objects and artefacts and remove them from their archaeological contexts?" There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent them doing so unless they do it on scheduled ancient monuments or land which is otherwise protected.

It is important and highly desirable that, when treasure or valuable artefacts are found, they should then be excavated by competent persons who have experience of archaeological excavations. In practice, they would come from museums or archaeological units. My anxiety with Amendment No. 15 is that at the moment if a treasure hunter finds some elements of treasure, there is no obligation on him to report it immediately. The thrust of my Amendment No. 16, is that the finder should report the find as soon as is reasonably practicable. I have in mind the case of the recent Hoxne discovery where the finder, who was operating at the request of the landowner, was not treasure hunting but was using a metal detector; unexpectedly he found gold coins and other valuable objects. He did not proceed further to excavate them in quantity, as he might have done, but through the landowner and the police he reported the matter so that the local museum or archaeological unit was able to conduct an excavation. Those remarkable finds were found in exactly the manner in which they had been packed in Roman times and an enormous amount of information was recovered.

Happily, because it was reported in the appropriate way, it was declared treasure trove and the original finder, the man with the metal detector, working with the consent of the landowner, received the reward of £1.75 million. I believe that by a private arrangement which he entered into with the landowner, he divided it with the landowner.

That is exactly the way in which the system should work, but it would have been most unfortunate if the finder had continued to dig up the whole hoard himself and then reported it to the coroner and handed it over. The same objects would have been recovered, but the information would not have been recovered. One of the most interesting discoveries of recent years would simply have been another important assemblage of gold and other precious objects. Thus there is great desirability that such finds should be reported at once and that the museum or archaeological unit, on behalf of the coroner, should then conduct the excavation.

So Amendment No. 16 has the intention of putting on the face of the Bill the requirement of prompt notification, not merely notification within a space of 14 days. One could well imagine that the finder might stop at nightfall and go back the next morning to dig up more until the whole find had been dug out and then report the matter to the coroner. As the Bill will stand with the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, the finder would be just as well off under the law in doing that as if he reported it more rapidly.

I understand that the code of conduct referred to later in relation to rewards can make clear that it is desirable that people should report finds at once. I understand that the matter can be dealt with under the code of conduct which we shall hear about at a later stage. However, I personally much prefer that under Amendment No. 16 there should be an obligation on the face of the Bill for very prompt notification.

The same point is dealt with in Amendment No. 17. There has to be some assurance for the finder that if he leaves part of the gold and silver and other treasure in the ground and notifies the coroner, he will not be financially worse off through notifying promptly. In the case of the Hoxne find, I am happy to say that the finder received the entire value of the find. But there have been other cases, which we need not go into on this occasion, when the finder has received an award or reward for what he personally found, but the finds subsequently made by the museum—in some cases the British Museum—have not been subject to reward to the original finder.

It is important that finders are given the incentive to report the find at once. That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 17: A finder who promptly notifies the coroner … shall … be considered as the finder of all the objects". I fear that there is then an imperfection in my amendment which makes me feel that it should perhaps not be moved on this occasion but should be moved at Third Reading. I think that I should delete the words, recovered which together constitute that treasure, including those objects". With the deletion of those words, the amendment would read: A finder who promptly notifies the coroner … shall … be considered as a finder of all the objects subsequently excavated or otherwise recovered from the findspot by or at the direction of the coroner". The amendment would then make perfect sense. The reason it does not make sense now is that if some other metal detectorist got into the action between one stage and the next there would be some obscurity. However, we need not go into that more technical point.

I have spoken long enough about these amendments; but they are of significance. Amendment No. 16, as it stands, would be an appropriate amendment to the Bill; although I feel now that it would not be appropriate for me to move Amendment No. 17 in the light of the imperfection that has been pointed out to me.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, perhaps I may first address myself to Amendment No. 15 in order to confirm that the Government fully recognise the importance of early reporting of finds. Clearly there are circumstances in which important archaeological evidence can be lost if reporting is delayed for anything like as much as 14 days. We certainly intend to deal with that issue in the code of practice that will be published under Clause 9. I envisage that one of the important messages that we shall want to get across in the code is the need for full and prompt reporting by finders, and the Secretary of State's intention to take the circumstances of reporting into account in determining the rewards to finders.

I now turn to Amendment No. 16, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. This amendment and the next one raise very important points. From the archaeological point of view it is very important that finds are reported promptly. As has already been mentioned, the 14 days which the Bill allows for reporting may in some circumstances seem excessively generous. It is undoubtedly true that a great deal of archaeological damage could be done if finders set about excavating a site on their own initiative for 14 days after making an initial find without reporting it.

However, we need to make a distinction here. Clause 4 lays down the test for a criminal offence for which there will be quite severe penalties, including the possibility of imprisonment. For that purpose it is essential that the Bill sets out a clear and objective test of what constitutes an offence. The 14-day requirement meets that test. A general requirement in the legislation to report as soon as is practicable is not acceptable for the purposes of defining the nature of the offence. One can easily imagine the arguments that could arise as to the practicability of reporting. As I have said, Clause 4 is concerned only with defining the criminal offence.

When one moves to the issue of rewards to finders, we accept that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to take into account the circumstances of the find and of its reporting in deciding on any reward to the finder. That is, however, a matter for the code of practice rather than the Bill. The Government will consult widely on the contents of the code of practice. Certainly the present intention is that the circumstances of reporting and any evidence of deliberate delay would be a factor which the Secretary of State would take into account in determining the amount of a reward.

Amendment No. 17 tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew also raises a very interesting point. I can see that establishing the initial finder's claim to everything that is subsequently found on the site could be a useful way of discouraging inexperienced finders from excavations which destroyed important evidence. I can also see that that could conceivably be a way of discouraging looters, who often descend on a site when word gets round that a find has been made. Arguably their interest would be excluded by this amendment.

However, the circumstances and sequences of finds are very various. In some cases the whole find is identified by the initial finder. In others the initial find leads to a professional excavation which is undertaken by a museum or archaeological unit. In the latter case my noble friend's amendment could have quite serious financial implications for museums if it required them to pay a reward even for material which they themselves excavated after the initial find. Again, this is an interesting point. It is certainly one which should be the subject of consultation during the process of drawing up the Secretary of State's code of practice. But it is not one on which I believe it would be sensible to lay down an absolutely hard and fast rule in the legislation. That is unlikely to take account of the great variety of circumstances that may be encountered. As I said in response to my noble friend's first amendment, it is the code of practice rather than the Bill which will set out the considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account in determining rewards. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Renfrew will feel able to withdraw both his amendments.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, as I indicated to the House, I feel that Amendment No. 17 should be withdrawn. I withdraw Amendment No. 16 with greater reluctance. I have not been entirely swayed by the arguments of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. But in view of her generally very constructive approach to the Bill I would not wish to move an amendment with which she disagreed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 16, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 17, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18: Page 2, line 43, at end insert: ("(4) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, a reasonable excuse for a failure to give a notification within the period mentioned in subsection (2) shall not be a defence where there is a time after the end of that period in relation to which that person cannot show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to give the notification.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 18 is fairly clear. It reads fairly simply. It provides that even where the two-week period for reporting finds has expired, a finder continues to have a duty to report a find as soon as any reasonable excuse which he may have had for not reporting the find during the specified two weeks is no longer valid. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I share the views that were expressed by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Renfrew earlier on about our admiration of the draftsman, especially over what was achieved in such a short time. But this is the one amendment among so many about which I have a doubt purely from the drafting point of view.

One reason for my doubt arises from the fact that the amendment contains a double negative. I also feel that it could be a bit more clearly worded. We must remember that there will be tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who will have to try to understand this new and very important departure in the law. I ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington if she will ask the draftsman to look again at Amendment No. 18 purely from the point of view of the drafting. I do not complain of the substance.

I have to concede that the draftsman had to bear in mind that in the earlier amendments the expression "wilfully", which was in the Bill as a result of an amendment at Committee stage, has been replaced by the words "without reasonable excuse". Amendment No. 18 attempts to apply one of the effects of that new phrase. All the same, I think that with further thought he might be able to draft it in such a way that the ordinary citizen could understand it a bit more easily.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I regard myself as a very ordinary citizen, and I understand what the amendment says. With no promises, I suggest to the noble Earl who moved this amendment that perhaps we could have another look at it and bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Duty of coroner to notify occupier of find of treasure]:

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 19: Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:

Procedure for inquests into treasure

(".—(1) A coroner who is proposing to conduct an inquest by virtue of section (Jurisdiction of coroners) in relation to any find ("a treasure inquest") shall notify his proposal to the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales, according to whether his district is in England or in Wales.

(2) Before proceeding with any treasure inquest a coroner shall take all such reasonable steps as appear to him to be appropriate —

  1. (a) for ascertaining the name and address of the person who at the time of the find was the occupier of the land where the find was made,
  2. (b) for notifying that person about the inquest; and
  3. (c) for securing that that person is afforded an opportunity of examining witnesses at the inquest.

(3) It shall be the duty of a coroner—

  1. (a) before or in the course of a treasure inquest, to take reasonable steps to obtain, from any person notified about the inquest under subsection (2), the particulars available to that person of the names and addresses of other interested persons; and
  2. (b) to take all such reasonable steps as appear to the coroner to be appropriate—
    1. (i) for notifying the interested persons whose names and addresses he has obtained about the inquest, and
    2. (ii) for securing that every interested person notified is afforded an opportunity of examining witnesses at the inquest.

(4) The references in subsection (3), in relation to a treasure inquest, to interested persons are references to every person who—

  1. (a) occupied or had an interest in the land where the find was made at the time when it was made or has had such an interest at any time since the making of the find; and
  2. (b) appears to the coroner to be likely, by reason of his occupation or interest, to be concerned with the matters to be dealt with at the inquest.

(5) A coroner shall not conclude the proceedings at a treasure inquest until he has complied with subsection (3).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lady Trumpington I should like to move Amendment No. 19, which substitutes the new Clause 5 for the original Clause 5. The clause concerns the procedures which are followed by coroners in conducting inquests into treasure and there are a number of significant differences.

First, the new clause introduces a new provision requiring the coroner to notify the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales of any find. That is a significant step. Those museums can be relied upon to notify local museums, where appropriate, and steps can be taken to ensure that proper professional advice—historical or archaeological advice—is available to the coroner.

Secondly, the new clause, like the old one, requires the coroner to take all reasonable steps to identify the occupier of the land where any find was made and to notify that person; and now also to give him or her the opportunity to examine witnesses at the inquest. That is a further element.

Thirdly, the new clause requires the coroner, and no longer the occupier, to establish from whom the occupier holds the land—the freeholder or the head leaseholder—and then to give that person the same rights at the inquest as the occupier. In that way we cart ensure that the occupier and the person from whom he holds the land are aware of the find and are able to participate in the inquest.

Noble Lords will see that in the interests of ensuring that landlords are informed of finds on their land, the amendment places the duty of notification on the coroner rather than on the occupier. One interesting effect of that is that, if an occupier were to refuse to co-operate with the coroner and refuse to make details of his landlord available, he would be guilty of contempt of court. I hope that that will be seen as a significant strengthening of the Bill's provision in respect of landowners' interests, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was very keen to emphasise at the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Walpole moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, Amendments Nos. 20 to 28: Line 8, leave out ("such"). Line 8, leave out ("as appear to him to be appropriate"). Line 9, leave out ("for ascertaining") and insert ("to ascertain"). Line 12, leave out ("for notifying") and insert ("to notify"). Line 13, leave out ("for securing") and insert ("to secure"). Line 20, leave out ("all such"). Line 20, leave out ("as appear to the coroner to be appropriate"). Line 22, leave out ("for notifying") and insert ("to notify"). Line 24, leave out ("for securing") and insert ("to secure").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to these amendments which are amendments to the new Clause 5. I should like to point out at the outset that we very much appreciate that a considerable effort has been made in drafting the amendment dealing with the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Lytton at Committee stage. Unfortunately, my noble friend is not able to be present today but the amendments to it stand in both our names. I should also like to say that our amendments have the support of the Country Landowners' Association, whose 50,000 members are often at the sharp end of controversies over finds of what in the future will be defined as "treasure".

As my noble friend said in Committee, the landowners are often left to deal with the consequences of significant finds at the site. They may have to take on the site responsibilities and management at a later date. They have another locus as well in that the find may well belong to the landowner as he or she may have an opportunity to prove title at an inquest. Those legitimate rights must be recognised in the Bill; otherwise we face a damaging free-for-all, which in the long run cannot be in the interests of archaeological research and certainly does not respect the rights of those who own the land on which finders may be prospecting.

Therefore, I welcome the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which requires the coroner of an inquest to obtain from the occupier the name and address of the landowner and to take steps to notify that landowner of the inquest and to give him or her a chance to participate in the inquest, including the opportunity of proving title to the find.

But here I find the wording of the amendment a little woolly and subjective. The requirement in new Clause 5(2) and 5(3) (b) to, take all such reasonable steps as appear to him to be appropriate cannot be tested and so do not place an effective requirement in practice on the coroner to try to contact the landowner. Perhaps the words have been put in because of the Government's fears about putting additional demands on coroners, but I believe that the Bill is in danger of becoming misleading by introducing a requirement that is not truly a requirement at all. The Government might have said, "Okay, we agree in principle that coroners should inform the landowner but we are not prepared to take steps to ensure that it happens in practice". But perhaps I am doing the Government a disservice and what they want is in fact what I want. I suggest that what I propose in this series of amendments would be what we are both looking for.

I do not seek in any way to alter the basic meaning of the provision. I seek only to make clear that this is what we all want. Therefore, I hope that the amendments tabled in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Lytton will find favour with both the promoters of the Bill and the Government. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I believe that these amendments would strengthen the clause and remove anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, intimated, we are probably all of the same mind. On that basis, I personally believe that we should accept them.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, I believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, that we are all of one mind on this matter. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, are well taken. It is the intention that landowners as well as occupiers should be represented at the inquest. If these amendments make that clearer, I am sure that they will be acceptable. I personally support them.

On Question, Amendments Nos. 20 to 28, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Inquests]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 29: Leave out Clause 6.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I suspected that this would happen when I moved Amendment No. 14. Accordingly, I simply beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Suspected treasure]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 30: Leave out Clause 7.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. This clause is unnecessary. Under the Bill as originally drafted it overlapped in any event with Clause 2. The effect of Clause 7 would have been to deem non-treasure to be treasure until the contrary was established at an inquest.

However, our intention was to invalidate any transaction taking place before a find had been formally declared treasure by an inquest. That can be achieved under the existing law. Under existing law the police can prosecute someone for stealing an object which was treasure, even if it had not at the time of the theft been declared treasure at an inquest. That has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal. To that extent, therefore, Clause 7 is not only unnecessary but rather misleading. Obviously, what we need to do is to make use of the existing law. We do not want to have double law-making. In that connection, one should mention that Amendment No. 8 will be very helpful and help to achieve simplification still further.

Another effect of Clause 7 would have been to introduce the possibility that finders could be guilty of stealing objects which turned out not to be treasure and were therefore probably finders' property in any case. But it is agreed that that would be unacceptable.

Finally, I should like to mention the link between this clause and market overt. To the extent that the clause was aimed at invalidating transactions under market overt, it will become unnecessary in any event because of the market overt Bill which was agreed by your Lordships and is now about to be considered by another place. But I return to the amendment, which is to leave out Clause 7. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, perhaps I can intervene briefly to say that I completely endorse the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton regarding the seriousness with which theft of treasure should be regarded and the importance of recognising that under the existing law it is a criminal offence, even at the stage before a find has been formally identified as treasure at an inquest. That, and the risk of prosecution where transactions take place before an inquest, are again matters on which we intend to give guidance in the Secretary of State's code of practice.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Ex gratia awards]:

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 31: Leave out Clause 8 and insert the following new clause:

Rewards

(".—(1) Where there is a proposal for treasure that has vested in the Crown under section 1 to be transferred from the Crown to any museum, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to determine, in such manner as he thinks fit—

  1. (a) the market value of the treasure to which the proposal relates;
  2. (b) whether he requires an amount by way of reward to be paid by the museum before effect can be given to the proposal; and
  3. (c) the amount of any such reward, the person or persons to whom it is to be payable and, if it is to be payable to more than one person, the manner in which it should be shared between them.

(2) The total amount determined under this section to be payable by way of reward in respect of any treasure shall not exceed the amount determined to be the market value of the treasure.

(3) The persons who shall be eligible to receive a reward determined under this section, or a share of such a reward, are—

  1. (a) the finder and any other persons involved in finding the treasure,
  2. (b) the occupier at the time of the find of the land where the treasure was found, and
  3. (c) the persons who had interests in that land at that time or have had such interests at any time since the making of the find.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in making any determination under this section with respect to any matter, to have regard to any provision about that matter in the code of practice for the time being in force under section 9.

(5) This section applies in relation to treasure that has vested in the franchisee for any place as it applies in relation to treasure that has vested in the Crown, but only if the franchisee has asked the Secretary of State to make a determination under subsection (1) with respect to that treasure.

(6) A determination under this section shall not confer any right enforceable against a museum or the Secretary of State to the payment of the whole or any part of any reward.

(7) In this section "franchisee" has the same meaning as in section 1.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an important new clause because it deals with the subject of rewards and is so slanted—if I may use that word—that it encourages people to behave properly when they find anything.

The original Clause 8 simply provided discretion for the Secretary of State to make ex gratia awards to finders, owners or occupiers, taking account of all the circumstances. The effect of the new clause is to provide the Secretary of State with more comprehensive and explicit powers. Where a museum may wish to acquire treasure, the Secretary of State is given a duty to determine its market value. There is, of course, already in existence a committee of experts, known as the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee, which advises the Secretary of State on valuations. The Secretary of State must also determine whether any reward should be paid by the museum, and if so, the size and destination of any reward. The new clause, importantly, provides that in no circumstances may the reward exceed the market value of the treasure.

Subsection (3) provides that finders, occupiers and others with an interest in the land where the find was made are all eligible to receive some or part of the reward. "Eligible" is a valuable word. It does not say that they will receive it; but it opens the door very wide. Subsection (4) provides that in deciding on the payment of any reward the Secretary of State must have regard to his code of practice —we shall come to that on Clause 9.

Subsection (3) may cause noble Lords some concern if it gives the impression that rewards will normally be shared between finders, occupiers and owners. That is not our intention. Subsection (3) simply defines the legal extent of eligibility for a reward—as did the previous Clause 8. Policy on the payment of rewards will be set out in the Secretary of State's code of practice. We would expect that where finders behave properly and report finds promptly, they will continue to receive the full value of their finds, as they do now. I beg to move.

Lord Walpole moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, Amendment No. 32: Line 17, at end insert ("other than a trespasser").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lytton, is an amendment to Amendment No. 31, moved by my noble friend Lord Perth, and provides that trespassers shall not be entitled to rewards. No doubt it will be argued that finders who are trespassers will not be inclined to report finds if they think they may be denied a reward. However, we must bear in mind two basic principles.

First, it is surely not the place of government or this House to be engaged in the production of legislation which actively and consciously rewards persons for unlawful behaviour. That is a primrose path. Secondly —here I wish to engage the pragmatism of the promoters of the Bill —my amendment will not so much discourage declarations as encourage prospective finders to seek permission of owners to enter on to land to look for archaeological finds. That surely is the behaviour that we are seeking to encourage. It will also help to establish the provenance of finds and fix their archaeological context.

I acknowledge that in the new Clause 8 my noble friend Lord Perth and the Government for the first time recognise the legitimate interests of the occupier and the landowner, for which we are extremely grateful. I shall therefore be interested to hear the Minister's response as to how the Government justify payment of rewards to those who trespass or, indeed, the return of artefacts to finders rather than to landowners or occupiers when they are not wanted by museums. At the least I hope that the Minister will include in her reply a detailed indication of how the Government's code of practice is intended to deal with trespassers when determining rewards and how they should be shared out.

It will be helpful if the Government: can confirm their intention that the code of practice to be published will make clear that there should be specific and strong reasons why a trespasser should receive a reward. To be honest, I cannot envisage justification for a reward being made to a finder when trespassing. But if the Government believe that such reward is justified, I should like to hear that the code of practice will set out the circumstances which merit such a reward and any circumstances where rewards will not be paid to trespassers. I beg to move.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, in regard to the two amendments I commend to your Lords hi ps Amendment No. 31, which sets out a clear procedure by which the Secretary of State will take various matters into account. He will establish the market value of the treasure; whether it requires any amount to be paid by the museum; whether the museum is to retain the treasure once it is established as such, and the apportionment of the reward to be paid.

As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, acknowledged, there is a modification to the existing situation in relation to treasure trove. Now, not only the finder and those involved in finding the treasure but also the occupier and other persons with interests in the land —essentially the owners —may be taken into consideration when rewards are being established. But the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, was asking for some justification for the payment of rewards to persons who find treasure when they have no entitlement to be on the piece of land where they find it.

I remind your Lordships, though I am sure everyone is well aware, that such is indeed the circumstance with the present working of treasure trove. It is not in any sense or manner a new concept which is being introduced into the Bill; the existing concept will continue to apply. That is an important point which your Lordships may wish to take into account.

The overriding interest—the heritage interest—is that finds should be reported. That is the crucial point. As I said earlier this evening, it is preferable that finds be reported rapidly so that proper investigations can be made of the context of those finds. Unless one gives to the finder—whether or not that finder is a trespasser —an incentive, that finder is unlikely to report the find. It is therefore imperative that the Secretary of State recommends or rules that the finder receives some sort of reward.

It is to be regretted when individuals trespass on land. I would have been happy for the Bill to contain those provisions which earlier drafts contained, including an offence of aggravated trespass which would impose more severe penalties on trespassers who trespass for the purpose of seeking treasure. But the remedy which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, is seeking will come in the code of practice where it is to be expected that in some circumstances at any rate trespassers who are wilfully trespassing against the wishes of the occupier or landowner are likely to receive a diminished award. I have no doubt that the code of practice will take note of that. But other speakers at an earlier stage pointed out that it is possible to be a trespasser without even being aware of it if you are following a path which then peters out and you go off the line of the path. It is imperative that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his judgment in these matters.

I quite understand that it is vexatious to landowners when persons who trespass may qualify for a reward, or part of one, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will realise that, first, this provision is in keeping with the way the present treasure trove arrangements operate and, secondly, that the need to encourage finders to report is the overriding interest in this matter. So I oppose the noble Lord's amendment.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, as my name is set down against the amendment—and I am very glad to be here this afternoon—I have been given an unexpected opportunity to cover one or two points. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I cannot accept that the existing concept under treasure trove is correct. As we are setting about amending it because it manifestly operates poorly in other respects, it is only right and proper that we should remedy it in the manner proposed in Amendment No. 32.

I do not believe that there can be any excuses for wrong doing. I find it very difficult, as I have said earlier in the passage of this Bill, to accept that it is possible to be an unknowing participant with a metal detector. I shall leave the point at that. People know very well what is allowed and what is not. We have rehearsed this ground already and I cannot accept that particular point.

My next point relates to common courtesy, and linked with that is the broader interest of public morals which I certainly do not believe should be eroded. I do not believe it to be acceptable that such an erosion should be enshrined in legislation—not one jot or iota. Beyond that I feel that the nation's interest is served by a common endeavour. Unless the interests of all relevant parties are taken into account then the chances are that the model which we are seeking to create in legislation will fail in one or more respects. I believe that legitimate access to land as distinct from that which is not legitimate, needs to be sorted out. I would like to see that done on the face of the Bill. I am not happy to leave the matter for a code of practice at a later date.

We must have some indication from the Minister as to what is intended in that respect. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walpole will decide what he is going to do about these matters, but whatever he decides, some time before the end of our deliberations on this Bill these matters have to be sorted out in this House. I support Amendment No. 32. I would also like to congratulate in particular my noble friend Lord Perth on the amended Clause 8 which considerably improves matters.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I shall be very brief. We on this side of the House would like to support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. We understand the feelings of indignation about trespass which have been present historically. The matter is better dealt with in its own right. I am sure that the real priority is as stated—that is to say, that we should encourage the reporting of what is found. There is a delicate balance of what is called "eligibilities" in this Bill. This clause gets as close as is practical to achieving that. The code of practice will be very important. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment knowing that we have all listened with great sympathy to the basic principle behind what he says. I hope that he will join us on this matter.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. I believe that the noble Earl produced a red herring at one stage when he spoke about an unwitting trespasser with a metal detector. There is nothing at all in the Bill about metal detectors. We are talking about a possible, unwitting trespasser who comes across treasure trove. We know that there have been cases of people just kicking into something and finding artefacts. We are not necessarily talking about people with metal detectors. There is obviously a major problem here and one which should be settled in the course of the advice which is given rather than on the face of the Bill. If satisfactory assurances are given on that we should not agree to this amendment, but should rely on the commitments of the Secretary of State.

Lord Congleton

My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to seek clarification of Amendment No. 31. I refer in particular to subsection (1) (b) which refers to rewards payable by the museum. Noble Lords may wonder why I should be interested in such things. For 35 years I have lived in the deep south of the county of Wiltshire which is an exciting archaeological area. More especially, I have been happily associated with the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum for almost as long as I have lived in the area.

As regards that institution I have been cast in the role not of archaeologist or scholar, but of fund raiser. When I saw this amendment I began to wonder—and this is the point on which I seek clarification—whether whoever shall have authority in these matters will withhold artefacts or treasure which have been offered to a museum on the grounds that a reward cannot be paid by the museum because of a lack of funds. I hope that I make sense. It is not clear to me from where this money is to come. If it is not to come from the museum will that prevent the museum from receiving the treasure or the artefacts which are the subject of this clause?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 31, I confirm that we are broadly in agreement with the noble Earl on the question of rewards to finders. As I made clear at Committee stage, we recognise the importance of encouraging the reporting of finds. We need to ensure that adequate incentives to finders are preserved under any new arrangements. We also want to discourage wrong behaviour. While there may be circumstances in which some reward to occupiers and owners will be appropriate, we certainly want the legislation to provide for that possibility.

As I have said, we are fully aware of the importance of retaining the incentive to finders to report and surrender treasure to the Crown. It is our present view that in the normal case where finders operate within the law with the full knowledge and agreement of occupiers or owners of land, and report their finds fully and promptly, they should continue to receive rewards reflecting the full market value of their finds.

I am not sure whether I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. If I have not, perhaps I shall be able to do so in the latter part of my speech. Indeed, I now believe that the answer is that the reward must come from the museum. It is possible that a museum will not have the resources to buy a find and that it will have to be returned to the finder or landowner. I hope that that answers the point.

As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, explained, the amendment in his name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendment No. 32, would have the effect of placing an absolute bar on the payment of any reward to a trespasser. Again, I have to say that I do not think this is appropriate for the Bill. The policy to be adopted by the Secretary of State on the payment of rewards is a matter for the code of practice rather than the formal provisions of the Bill. I have no wish to belittle the importance of trespass as an issue to be taken into account, but I do not think it is safe to say that trespass alone and in itself should in all circumstances constitute an absolute bar to the payment of any reward.

This is exactly the sort of issue on which there needs to be further consultation with all interested parties. The Secretary of State intends to undertake such consultation before drawing up his code of practice. That will provide the opportunity for the interests which the noble Lord and the noble Earl represent to stress the importance they attach to the issue of trespass in this context and make specific proposals for its treatment in the code of practice. I am sure it can be said with absolute certainty that the code will need to stress the importance that the Secretary of State attaches to proper and legal behaviour on the part of finders.

Perhaps I may also advise the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the Bill goes much further than previous legislation in recognising all interests, including those of landowners, which were not previously recognised at all. On the basis of what I and my noble friends have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

7 p.m.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that considered reply. I shall certainly consider it carefully. I was particularly heartened that she felt that it would be proper to give further consideration to the matter when drawing up the code of practice. Obviously, I reserve my right to return to the issue at a later stage but, for the time being, with permission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 32, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 31 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Government guidance about treasure]:

[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 34: Page 3, line 30, leave out ("may publish") and insert ("shall prepare, keep under review and from time to time revise").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the original Clause 9 provided for the publication of guidance on treasure. Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 38 and 39 considerably strengthen that provision. First, they impose on the Secretary of State a duty to produce a code of practice. The previous provision was discretionary. He will have to keep the code under review and, as appropriate, revise it.

Secondly, Amendment No. 35 sets out more clearly that the code must lay down principles and practice for both offering finds to museums, and determining rewards. I touched on the latter issue in speaking to new Clause 8.

Finally, Amendment No. 39 provides that the Secretary of State must consult interested persons before preparing or revising the code of practice. Such consultation would certainly include the major interests such as the National Council of Metal Detectorists and the Country Landowners' Association as well as the archaeological community. The code will not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—in other words, the code will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Secretary of State will, of course, be under a duty to publish his code and to have regard to it in determining rewards. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a useful strengthening of the provision for guidance. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36: Page 3, line 31, at end insert: ("(1A) The code shall set out the principles and practice which the Secretary of State is proposing to follow—

  1. (a) when he considers whether or not treasure should be offered to a museum or to the finder or to any other person; and
  2. (b) when he makes a determination under section (Rewards).").
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("Any such") and insert ("The").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 38: Page 3, line 32, after ("who") insert ("search for or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 39 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 39: Page 3, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 4 and insert: ("(2A) Before preparing the code or revising it the Secretary of State shall consult such of the persons appearing to him to be interested in the matters to which the code is to relate as he thinks appropriate. (2B) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the code and of any proposed revision of the code before Parliament; and neither the code nor any revision of the code shall come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (2C) The Secretary of State shall publish the code in force under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of all persons interested. (2D) Where the Secretary of State considers that the code should make different provision for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, or should otherwise make different provision for treasure found in different areas, he may if he thinks fit prepare the code as two or more separate codes each applying to a particular area; and, if he does, the requirements of this section shall apply separately in relation to each code.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 42: After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:

Application of Act to Northern Ireland

(".—(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland—

  1. (a) in section (Jurisdiction of coroners) (1)—
    1. (i) for the words "section 30 of the Coroners Act 1988" there shall be substituted the words "section 33 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959";
    2. (ii) the words from "and anything" to "practice etc.)") shall be omitted;

(b) in section (Procedure for inquests into treasure) (1), for the words from "British Museum" to the end there shall be substituted the words "Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland".

(2) Accordingly, in section 33 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (inquest on treasure trove), for "treasure trove" there shall be substituted "treasure".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is a new clause. The Bill, as it stands, applies only to England and Wales, but the combined effect of Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 would be to apply it to Northern Ireland. The method of doing so is rather technical, but I should explain the background of which I have been advised.

The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has long been the agent of the Treasury in administering treasure trove in Northern Ireland. Since the most recent agency agreement between the two was drawn up in 1977, nine treasure trove inquests have been held in Ulster. Once the Bill is enacted, the role of the Treasury and its agency agreement with the DoE (Northern Ireland) will lapse and it will be replaced by one between the DoE (Northern Ireland) and the Department of National Heritage. This is purely an internal governmental matter—a way of sorting out administration. The substance of the current practice in Northern Ireland will not be changed.

It is pleasant to note that there is already a requirement in Northern Ireland to report treasure trove within 14 days, which is in line with the provisions of the Bill. The wider arrangements which have long existed in Northern Ireland for the reporting of non-treasure trove finds will not be affected in any way. It is surely an agreeable thought that not only will the Bill, if the amendment is accepted, apply to Northern Ireland, but the present law and practice there will be embodied in this Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 43: After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:

Consequential amendments

(".—(1) The following amendments shall have effect in relation to any object found after the commencement of section 1.

(2) In section 54(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (saving for rights in relation to treasure trove) for "in relation to treasure trove" there shall be substituted "under the Treasure Act 1994".

(3) In section 12(8) of the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (finding of archaeological objects)—

  1. (a) for the words "treasure trove", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted "any treasure within the meaning of the Treasure Act 1994"; and
  2. (b) for those words, in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted "such treasure".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to tidy up, as it were, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act in terms of its only reference to treasure trove. That comes in Section 54(3) which states: Nothing in this section shall affect any right of the Crown in relation to treasure trove". The new clause simply brings that wording into line with the provisions of the Bill and makes a comparable modification in relation to the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

It is perhaps of interest to point out, if I may, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that even under the present provisions relating to scheduled ancient monuments, if a finder finds treasure or, as at present, treasure trove, on such a monument, that finder is indeed the finder, and is the person who is currently eligible for reward. While I take the point made by the noble Earl that it is in many ways inimical that a trespasser receive reward, it is even more inimical that someone who is treasure hunting on a scheduled ancient monument should receive reward. Yet there is an overriding principle that it is important that finders be encouraged to report their finds. But perhaps I go a little beyond the scope of this minor consequential amendment which I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Commencement]:

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 44: Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("force") to end of line 5 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes and for different provisions.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment changes the provision for the coming into force of the Bill. The Bill, as introduced, provided that the Bill as a whole came into force after three months. This new provision will give the Secretary of State power to fix a date, and, if necessary, to fix different dates for different parts of the Bill. That I understand is necessary to ensure that the Bill's extension of the concept of treasure does not come into force until a code of practice on payment of rewards has been approved by Parliament. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, it is our view that it is inappropriate for the main provisions of the Bill in particular the vesting in the Crown of treasure falling within the extended definition in Clause 2, to come into force until a code of practice has been published and approved under Clause 9. It is essential that the principles upon which rewards and compensation will be paid are in place, following debate in Parliament, before any occupier or owner of land faces the possibility that finds which might previously have been his—that is, finds not previously falling within the definition of "treasure trove"—are claimed by the Crown. Otherwise, there is clearly a possibility that the Bill's provisions would be regarded as expropriation, and as such might be regarded as an infringement of the European Convention on human rights.

That does mean that, even if the Bill is enacted this Session, it is likely to be some months before it is brought fully into force. It is our intention to bring Clause 9 into force as soon as possible and then to produce the code. We will aim to do that as quickly as possible; and I would certainly hope that it is a process which can be completed by the end of the year. But, as I have said, it is our view that this is a delay which is unavoidable: it would simply not be possible to extend the definition of "treasure" on the basis of the present payment of rewards to finders, without infringing the interests of other parties.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Short title and extent]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 45: Page 4, line 7, leave out ("extends to England and Wales only") and insert ("does not extend to Scotland").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

In the Title:

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 46: Leave out ("and to amend the law relating to treasure trove").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to reflect the fact that the Bill now substitutes the new concept of treasure for the old concept of treasure trove rather than merely amending the latter. I have almost come to the end of my remarks, but I wish to say two things. I rejoice in hearing the noble Baroness express the hope that the Bill might become law by the end of the year. I hope that that is fulfilled. It is splendid news.

I am not sure that this is in order, but I am going to do it. I wish to thank all those who have taken part in the debate on the Bill and the officials who have made it possible for us to reach this stage. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.