Treasure (Designation) Order 2002

HL Deb 10 October 2002 vol 639 cc487-96

8.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move that the draft Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 be approved. I shall speak also to the draft Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (Revised) (England and Wales) 2002. The orders were debated in committee in another place on 16th July 2002.I am satisfied that the two instruments are compatible with Convention rights.

Two closely connected instruments are before the House today. I begin by describing what the first does. The Treasure (Designation) Order extends the definition of "treasure" in Section 1 of the Treasure Act 1996 by designating, under Section 2(1) of the Act, two classes of objects as being of outstanding historical, archaeological or cultural importance. The order applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only. I can confirm that it has approval from the devolved administrations.

The first class of object is one of at least two base metal objects from the same find—other than coins—which are of prehistoric date. The second class of object is any object of prehistoric date—other than a coin—any part of which is gold or silver.

A new order extending the definition of treasure forms one of the principal recommendations of the report on the operation of the Treasure Act 1996, published in November 2001. The Government's commitment to the new designations was expressed most recently in The Historic Environment: Force for Our Future, published by my department in December last year.

The widening of the definition of treasure in this way—to include deposits of prehistoric base metal objects—will extend protection to an important class of finds not currently covered by the law. We are advised by the archaeological community that there may be up to 50 potential finds in this category a year. This change should ensure they are reported and properly recorded. The new order is designed to catch nationally important finds, such as the Bronze Age metalsmith's hoard found near Salisbury a few years ago, which would otherwise go out of the public domain unrecorded.

The Treasure Act came into force in September 1997. It was the first ever reform of the law of treasure trove in England and Wales. It is extraordinary to remember now that the common law it replaced had essentially remained unchanged for over 700 years. The main aim of the Treasure Act was to introduce a new objective test of what is treasure, while at the same time making the law enforceable.

The reporting and the preservation of treasure is vital to the understanding of our shared past. As the recently published Annual Treasure Report (2000) clearly shows, the Treasure Act has certainly succeeded in its primary aim of ensuring that more finds of archaeological importance are offered to museums for public education and enjoyment than was true before. In addition, there has been a substantial gain in our knowledge of different artefacts and their distribution since the introduction of the Act—knowledge that would otherwise be lost. As a measure of success, for the third year running the number of finds reported as potential treasure has continued to increase: from 205 in the first year, to 223 in the second year and 265 in the third year.

However, the substantial increase in the caseload borne by the many different parties concerned with the operation of the Act has, from time to time, placed strains upon the system, leading to delays. For this reason, in September 2000, my department commissioned a review of the Act, as required by the code of practice. The review focused on two issues: the definition of treasure and the system of administration. A consultation paper was issued in December 2000 and a report on the operation of the Act was published last November. Both documents were widely circulated.

Turning to the second instrument, the draft revised code of practice laid before your Lordships represents the final outcome of that consultation exercise. The existing code has been revised to take account of the order, and several other changes designed to improve its operation have been made in the light of four years' experience. The new code sets out policy on the payment of rewards, arrangements for the acquisition of objects and the valuation of treasure by the Treasure Valuation Committee. The code, which has effect in England and Wales, also provides improved guidance for finders, museums, coroners and others concerned with treasure. There is a separate code of practice for Northern Ireland, which is being revised on similar lines.

In particular, the new code contains guidance designed to speed up target times, so that finders and landowners are not inconvenienced more than necessary. The Government recognise that the code needs to be distributed as widely as possible to all interested parties—especially to metal detectorists, landowners, archaeologists, museums, the antiquities trade, coroners and the police. My department will also distribute additional guidance summarising the main requirements of the Act.

In recognition of the problem of delays to the administration of treasure cases, extra resources have been made available. To complement an existing post devoted full-time to treasure, two new posts have been created. I also greatly welcome the decision of the British Museum to create a new post for a treasure registrar from last October. The treasure registrar is responsible for the co-ordination of all treasure cases from England until inquest; after that, responsibility passes to the treasure team in my department. The establishment of that post was another of the key recommendations of the review. Early indications are that the treasure registrar is already having a substantial impact on the administration of treasure cases before inquest.

Although it is unnecessary to have separate registrar posts in Wales or Northern Ireland, where the volume of finds is lower, I also acknowledge the valuable role of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales, the Environment and Heritage Agency and the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland in dealing with treasure cases in their countries.

My department is also anxious to work with other bodies that have responsibilities for treasure, especially the Coroners' Service, which has a central role. My department, with the British Museum, will be holding a seminar for coroners on new developments in treasure in December. At the same time, we have been co-operating with the fundamental review of coroners being carried out by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

The network of regional museum curators and local governmet archaeological officers who have agreed to act as local reporting centres has also played an important part in the process. The 12 finds liaison officers established under the portable antiquities scheme have played an often crucial role in helping finders to report their finds and ensuring the smooth running of the system. Thanks to the liaison officers, it is already obvious that a significant number of finds have been reported as treasure that would not otherwise have been.

I should explain that, despite the increase in cases of treasure since the Act came into force, the great majority of archaeological finds still fall outside the scope of the Act. The aim of the portable antiquities scheme is to record for public benefit all archaeological objects reported by members of the public on a voluntary basis. Those objects may not be so glamorous as the treasure finds but, from the point of view of understanding our past, they can be just as, if not more, important.

I am delighted to report that in May the Heritage Lottery Fund agreed to fund in full a bid from Resource for an expansion of the portable antiquities scheme for three years from next April. From late 2003, there will be a national network of 36 finds liaison officers across England and Wales, as well as four supporting finds specialist posts and a central support team of five—45 posts in all. That means that we can be confident that there will be the staff to ensure that finds are dealt with as they should be.

The Act, with the support of the portable antiquities scheme, has achieved considerable success in mapping, protecting and bringing the general public closer to the more sensitive parts of our archaeological heritage, which would otherwise be lost. I commend the instruments to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I listened to the Minister's words with great interest, especially as this is the first time that matters pertaining to treasure have been debated in the House since our debates on Lord Perth's Treasure Bill in 1994 and 1996. As the then government spokesman on such matters, perhaps I may say how delighted I am at the success of the Treasure Act 1996 since it came into force. I think that I can see some old, familiar friends sitting in the far corner who helped me no end at the time. I should add that when Lord Perth's Bill became a government Bill, my noble friend Lord Inglewood was in the hot seat occupied by the noble Baroness today.

The Minister touched on the fact that the Treasure Act 1996 has resulted in a tenfold increase in finds reported as treasure—from 25 to 250 a year—that have been offered to museums for them to acquire for public benefit. We hope that the order before us will bring in another 50 cases a year. I am therefore wholly in favour of the order and revised code of practice and should merely like to ask the Minister a few questions of which I have given her notice.

In view of the Government's decision to extend the Act, do they accept the need to provide long-term stable funding for a nationwide network of finds liaison officers to make it work? Secondly, the Minister will realise that the Act has placed considerable extra burdens on other bodies such as the British Museum, which has the main responsibility for examining and reporting on treasure finds from England. No additional funding has been provided by the Government for the 10 extra posts involved in that work. Indeed, the museum now faces a funding crisis involving a £6.5 million deficit. What assurance can the Minister give that the additional burdens imposed by the order will be funded by government?

While the Act has led to a great increase in finds offered to museums for acquisition, museums must raise the money to pay the rewards for those finds from their own resources. They are finding that increasingly difficult because of budget cuts. As a result, treasure finds are being returned to finders because museums have been unable to raise the money.

Your Lordships will appreciate that if museums cannot acquire treasure finds when they want to, the Act is failing in its purpose. What is the Minister's solution to that problem? Would the Government agree to inaugurate a joint dedicated funding stream from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Resource/V&A purchase grant fund for treasure finds? There should also be greater help for small museums on how to apply for funding and an urgent review of museum collecting areas.

The Act contains a criminal offence of failing to report treasure. Although that has helped to ensure a high rate of reporting, there are still cases of unreported finds coming onto the market. I understand that, at present, it is difficult to invoke the law in such cases. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have accepted the case for introducing a new criminal offence? If they have, it is essential that the new offence be included in a criminal justice Bill in the next Session. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Freyberg

My Lords, I, too, should like to make a few comments on the order and the effect that it has had on the British Museum.

First, I welcome the opportunity that the Treasure Act 1996 provided for the British Museum to see and record a much higher number of finds and, in particular, for the museum to work very closely with regional museums in England, providing advice on the importance of finds and supporting their efforts to raise money to acquire them. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I would like to highlight the additional financial burden that that has placed on the museum.

Because the Treasure Act has attracted such an enormous response, there has been a correspondingly high—and unexpected—burden on the museum's human and financial resources. As the noble Baroness said, in less than five years, the British Museum has had to increase the number of staff who deal with treasures from the equivalent of three to around 13 full-time posts, at an additional cost of £500,000 per annum to deal with the near tenfold increase in treasure trove cases. As the level of response was not anticipated, the Government provided no additional funding. However, that has now become imperative. There is no sign that the increased workload will dry up, and valuable and historically significant objects continue to come to light.

The museum's staff are supportive of the Act's aims, but it seems unreasonable to expect a museum already under financial strain to absorb so large a sum. The Government will be aware that this comes at a time when the museum's grant-in-aid has been steadily decreasing in real terms. In order to bring the 2003–04 grant on to a par with the 1994–95 grant, it would need to be increased by 30 per cent, or £10 million in current terms. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider allocating a special sum to cover the important work that is being carried out. I ask them to be mindful of the obligations placed on the treasure and portable antiquities department by the Act. The museum's other work should not be penalised because of it.

I have heard rumours that the department does not look sympathetically at this plea for additional funding, believing that the museum is sufficiently compensated by now being able to claim back VAT on its activities. However, I would respectfully remind the department that the purpose of reclaiming VAT is to benefit the entire museum and not to subsidise the additional activities of a particular department. I hope that the Minister will take a further look at the request.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I welcome both the designation order and the revised code of practice. My noble friend was, of course, a key figure in the passing of the Treasure Act 1996, which, as she said, owed so much to the earlier efforts of the Earl of Perth.

The designation order is a major step forward. As we heard, it establishes as treasure hoards of prehistoric objects made of base metal. In recent years, our heritage has suffered dreadfully from the looting of such finds or, indeed, in many cases the legal excavation of such finds as they were not designated as treasure, and their export overseas.

One terrible episode, which I recall, was the story of the Salisbury hoard. It may not be the same as the noble Baroness's Salisbury hoard; my Salisbury hoard was of Iron Age date and was, perhaps, a votive deposit, not scrap metal. However, the main point is that it was looted at night by "nighthawks"—illegal metal detectorists—who went onto the landowner's land. When the case came to court, as a result of some rather good detective work at the British Museum, there was only one minor conviction with a short sentence, and several others were not convicted. Of course, at that time, the activities in question, although they were illegal because they took place on private land, did not relate to treasure. It is very welcome news that such activities are to be covered by the Treasure Act and will be dealt with more severely. That is a success.

I also salute the work of the portable antiquities scheme initiated by the department. It is splendid news that the number of liaison officers will increase from the pilot scheme number—12—to 36, to cover the whole of England and Wales. The department has been fortunate and, perhaps, skilful in arranging things so that the Heritage Lottery Fund is covering the expense of the enterprise for three years. However, as my noble friend said, there are anxieties about what will follow. I understand that the Heritage Lottery Fund people have said privately that they do not intend to pay for the work for any further period. I ask the Minister for an assurance that her department is examining ways in which the scheme will continue to be funded after April 2006. It is a national responsibility, and I hope for some encouragement from the Minister that the department regards it as such.

In the debate in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, Mr Richard Caborn said that liaison officers played, an often crucial role in helping finders report their finds and in ensuring the smooth running of the system. Thanks to the liaison officers, it is already obvious that a significant number of finds have been reported as treasure that would otherwise not have been".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 16/7/02; col. 5.] It was encouraging to hear the Minister speak in similar terms a moment ago.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, dealt fully with another issue. How do museums acquire the treasures, which must be paid for at full market rates? I echo the point made by the noble Lord about the burden that falls on the British Museum. It is wonderful to have a person entitled the treasure registrar, and if I were younger, I would love to apply for the post. There are several such persons in the British Museum now, and I am told that the number of people working on treasure has gone up from three to 13. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, those posts must be paid for.

Thirdly, I welcome the announcement made by the Government in July that we would accede to the 1970 UNESCO convention. However, I remind the House that the ministerial panel on illicit traffic in antiquities, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer and on which I have the honour of sitting, made the important recommendation that there should be a new criminal offence of possessing or dealing in cultural property that has been stolen or illicitly removed. That has been accepted as government policy. Although the motivation for creating that offence was, in large measure, to clamp down on the international trade in illicit antiquities, as covered by the Government's accession to the UNESCO convention, the law applies with equal force in the case of antiquities looted or illicitly handled in this country. It will be a useful adjunct and support to existing treasure legislation.

The Minister has already been generous in assuring the archaeological community of the Government's good intentions. Will she repeat the assurance that, at the next appropriate legislative opportunity—the next criminal justice Bill, for instance—the Government will ensure that such a measure is put on the statute book?

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, these are uncontroversial orders and we fully support them. I had laid out a detailed speech, but I will bin it because all the points have been covered. I have no questions to ask the Minister. Indeed, I have something which is unusual; that is, a note of gratitude to direct at her personally. She has done her utmost to ensure that the portable antiquities scheme will survive in its present form and will be allowed to continue until the start of the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is welcome and will give the scheme another three years.

However, that will lead to a big problem in three years' time because representatives of the Heritage Lottery Fund, in giving evidence to the All-Party Archaeological Group, have categorically stated that they will not fund the scheme past that three-year limit. That will lead to further debate in the House and to further careful appraisal of how the Government should finance the scheme.

It is only right that today we give thanks not only to the Minister but also to those who work with the portable antiquities scheme. The treasure officers do such good work in liaising with the metal detectorists. Many metal detectorists do sterling work, not to make financial profit but to protect the historic heritage. That heritage is put at serious risk by the increased industrialisation of farming.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, we, too, support the order and the revised code of practice. Although I reiterate what the Minister said about the extension of the definition of "treasure" and the improved administration in the practice of reporting, there is concern about funding. It is good that an improved system will be put in place which will speed up reporting. However, as was said by my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Renfrew and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that cannot happen in practice unless there is funding to support the initiatives.

As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it is otiose to repeat what has already been asked of the Minister and we look forward to her reply. However, I want to reiterate the concern about long-term funding. It must be made possible to have a sustainable nation-wide network of find liaison officers to support compliance with the Act. A considerable burden has been placed on bodies such as the British Museum, which is responsible for examining and reporting on treasure finds, because no additional funding has been provided in that regard.

Most importantly, the museums must raise the money to pay for the rewards. If they cannot do that, the Act is failing. The Act is being compromised if it is unable successfully to ensure the reporting of treasure. Will the Minister respond to the questions already asked of her and say whether there may be room for consideration in the forthcoming review of the criminal justice system? Will measures be introduced in the next Session to improve the position as regards the legality or otherwise of reporting finds and the illicit removal of wonderful treasures? As the Minister said, reporting is vital in the understanding of our past.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the provisions. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for deciding to bin his speech, given that all his points had been made and his questions asked by others. I acknowledge the excellent work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the Treasure Act, but like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I should like to acknowledge the work of all those involved in what for some people is an esoteric area but which I regard as most important.

I was asked about the portable antiquities scheme and whether I can given an assurance that it will receive long-term funding. Like other speakers, I was delighted to know that the Heritage Lottery Fund was able to support the scheme. That funding will expire in April 2006. In the mean time, I will give the reassurance that has been requested today: that the DCMS will give active thought to the question of the long-term sustainability of the scheme.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Trumpington and Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Freyberg, asked whether there would be sufficient resources to take on the additional burdens imposed by the order. I have already mentioned the additional posts that have been created in my department and the fact that the British Museum has created the post of treasure registrar. It is up to the British Museum to allocate adequate resources to fulfil its obligations under the Act.

Grant in aid to the museum has increased in real terms since this Government came into power. Therefore, I correct what was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Indeed, there has been an increase in real terms of 17 per cent in grant in aid across the board to our DCMS-sponsored museums since 1997. The British Museum raises a great deal of additional income from various other sources. Furthermore, the VAT concession the Government were able to give it is alone worth more than £750,000 a year. That is above what is estimated to be the cost of managing the treasure reporting process.

As regards the other museums, I remind the House that there has not been central funding to allow museums to acquire objects for more than 70 years and that the Treasure Act has not changed that position. Sponsored museums and galleries will be receiving additional funds following the spending review, although they will not be hypothecated specifically to treasure acquisitions—nor do I believe that they should be and nor do I believe that that would be welcomed by them. However, I can pledge today that there will be an increase in funding for museums.

Museums will have to find money for reward payments out of that increase and the grant in aid that they already have. Indeed, they are successful at doing that because they are raising approximately £1 million a year towards the funding of treasure acquisitions. That is a demonstration of the success of the process. Furthermore, we are not aware that any important treasure finds have not been acquired for lack of funding. However, if the noble Baroness is aware of such finds, I should be most interested to know. Of course not all finds are wanted by museums. Almost half are disclaimed and returned to their finders. The increase in the reporting of treasure finds simply highlights the need for prioritisation as regards museum collecting.

I turn to the final question on the action the Government intend to take to prohibit the looting of archaeological sites in this country. We are committed to introducing a new criminal offence. I cannot give a guarantee that it will be possible to include that in the forthcoming criminal justice Bill, but I can give an assurance that the offence (with a proposed maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment) would send out a strong signal to those who may be tempted to deal illegally in removed antiquities. It should also help in dealing with looting. We will do our best to try to find a route for bringing that on to the statute book at the earliest possible moment. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.