The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
†
Mr.
David
Wilshire
Bacon,
Mr. Richard
(South Norfolk)
(Con)
Bone,
Mr. Peter
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
†
Bryant,
Chris
(Rhondda)
(Lab)
†
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
†
Field,
Mr. Mark
(Cities of London and Westminster)
(Con)
†
Follett,
Barbara
(Stevenage)
(Lab)
†
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
†
Holmes,
Paul
(Chesterfield)
(LD)
†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw
(Ogmore)
(Lab)
†
Lammy,
Mr. David
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and
Sport)†
Mackinlay,
Andrew
(Thurrock)
(Lab)
†
Meacher,
Mr. Michael
(Oldham, West and Royton)
(Lab)
†
Mole,
Chris
(Ipswich)
(Lab)
†
Touhig,
Mr. Don
(Islwyn)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Walker,
Mr. Charles
(Broxbourne)
(Con)
†
Whitehead,
Dr. Alan
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
†
Younger-Ross,
Richard
(Teignbridge)
(LD)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Key,
Robert
(Salisbury)
(Con)
Loughton,
Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Fifth
Standing Committeeon Delegated
Legislation
Tuesday 31
October
2006
[Mr.
David Wilshire in the
Chair]
Draft Code of Practice on the Treasure Act 1996 (Second Revision) England and Wales 2006
The
Chairman: For the avoidance of confusion, I should explain
to the Committee that all time keeping will be in accordance with the
House of Commons annunciator. I cannot read the House of Lords
annunciator as it is at the other end of the
room.
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
(Mr. David Lammy): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Treasure Act
1996 (Second Revision) England andWales
2006
The Treasure Act
1996 has been a great success. Under the old treasure trove system,
which the Treasure Act replaced, around 20 to 30 items of treasure
trove were reported every year. Under the new Act, by 2006 this figure
had steadily risen to more than 500 items of treasure. The success of
the treasure system is also due, in no small part, to the role played
by the portable antiquities scheme, which is funded by my Department
and administered by the British Museum. The portable antiquities scheme
employs a national network of finds liaison officers who advise the
public on archaeology and treasure matters. It is against that backdrop
of success that my Department has introduced this proposal.
The code of
practice published under the Treasure Act 1996 by my right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spells out the
principles and practice to be followed by her in the treasure process
and provides guidance to other parties involved in the treasure system.
The Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to keep the code under
review and to revise it when appropriate. It is being revised now to
reflect the transfer of certain administrative responsibilities
relating to the valuation of finds and treasure, and the payment of
rewards from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the British
Museum.
The
DCMS currently undertakes a number of responsibilities relating to the
valuation of treasure finds, including the invoicing of museums and the
payment of rewards to finders and landowners. We propose to transfer,
with conditions, those responsibilities in respect of finds made in
England and Wales to the British Museum. The museum has already taken
on a number of responsibilities in relation to the administration of
the Treasure Act.
The
principles behind the amendments to the code of practice and the
amendments themselves have been consulted upon. The consultation was
sent to stakeholders
and that, of course, included the British Museum, the National Council
for Metal Detecting and various museums and their representative
bodies. I am pleased to say that all responses to the consultation were
supportive of the proposed transfer of responsibilities and of the
proposed amendments to the code.
The transfer of
responsibilities is designed to have two primary benefits. It is
intended to improve the service offered to those involved in the
treasure process, particularly the finders, landowners and museums that
acquire the finds. They will no longer have to deal with two
institutions as a find works its way through the system; they will have
to deal only with one institution, the British Museum. The museum will
liaise with all parties from the reporting stage through to the payment
of any reward. By being involved at every stage of the process, staff
at the British Museum will be best placed to ensure the smooth progress
of any item from the beginning to the end of the treasure system.
Locating those responsibilities in one body will remove the current
need to replicate expertise and files over two organisations. That will
improve the efficiency of the treasure system and lead to related
savings.
We are
mindful of the need to preserve public confidence in the system and to
ensure it maintains its integrity. The British Museum is a potential
purchaser of treasure finds and at the same time, under these
proposals, it will be responsible for the administration of the system
and will recommend to the Secretary of State the price that museums
should pay for such finds. Concerns have been expressed about that so
we have incorporated a number of safeguards into this transfer to
preserve the integrity of the system. In all cases it will remain the
Secretary of State’s responsibility to make decisions in
relation to rewards and valuations. The Department for Culture, Media
and Sport will retain its responsibilities relating to valuation when
the British Museum has shown an interest in acquiring a find.
Appointments to the treasure valuation committee will continue to be
made by the Secretary of State. The right of interested parties to make
representations to the Secretary of State against the committee's
recommendations will remain; and a detailed memorandum of understanding
will be agreed between the Department and the British Museum. That will
clearly spell out the responsibilities of both organisations, and it
will be available for public scrutiny.
Those
safeguards will ensure that the system retains a high level of
confidence among those involved that all finds will be fairly valued.
The code of practice needs to be amended to reflect the new procedures
which will be followed once the transfer of responsibilities has taken
place.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con):
I see that the Minister is coming towards the end of
his speech. Before he does, will he touch on the question of changes in
finance? Extra responsibilities are being given to the British Museum,
and it seems right that we should improve efficiency, but with those
responsibilities come costs. Will he highlight how the British Museum
is to meet such
costs?
Mr.
Lammy: We have had detailed conversations with the British
Museum and we have been able to come to a shared arrangement as to the
resource
allocation that should flow from the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport to the museum. I confirm that it is about
£100,000.
The number of
treasure finds being reported continues to rise at a tremendous rate.
That is of great benefit to our museums’ collections, and it is
a wonderful testament to all involved. Improving the service that we
are able to offer finders, landowners and museums, yet preserving the
faith that each group has in the system, will mean that the reporting
of treasure will continue to be one of my Department’s great
success stories.
4.37
pm
Mr.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): As
the Minister pointed out, the statutory instrument is essentially an
administrative measure. However, I know that my hon. Friends the
Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Salisbury
(Robert Key) will want to know a little about some of the specifics, as
the measure affects some of the antiquities in their
constituencies—or perhaps about other matters.
It would be remiss of us,
however, not to take this opportunity for a brief but relevant
discussion of the workings of the portable antiquities scheme. The
proposal enables the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to
transfer to the British Museum functions that it currently fulfils in
administering valuations and rewards for treasure finds. In essence, as
the Minister rightly pointed out, it will enable some duplication to be
removed. The British Museum, an institution that has been in place for
some 235 years longer than the Department, already has a unit that
deals with the administration of treasure.
The Treasure Act 1996 has had a
tremendous effect, although in a narrow area of operation. As the
Minister said, the number of finds offered to museums to acquire for
the public benefit has risen some 25-fold since the Act came into
operation almost a decade ago. It is expected that some 700 finds will
be dealt with under the portable antiquities scheme in 2006. However,
concerns have been expressed, no doubt as part and parcel of the
consultation exercise. The British Museum has concerns about long-term
funding. Many museums are concerned about funding, not least in
relation to the prospect of a new operator of the national lottery or
the expenses of London 2012. Indeed, the Minister is aware that the
Heritage Lottery Fund envisages a 50 per cent. reduction in such
funding once the comprehensive spending review is put in place.
We would like an
assurance from the Minister that some of the financial concerns raised
by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr.
Ellwood) will be dealt with. As the Minister knows, the only body that
can fund major projects is the Heritage Lottery Fund. Understandably,
given the strains on its resources, it is increasingly reluctant to
fund acquisitions by regional museums dependent on purchase grant funds
that will pay only up to 50 per cent., or various trusts that may stop
funding treasure in the next year or two.
As the Minister rightly pointed
out, there may be concerns about only one body being involved. Now that
the DCMS is passing on responsibility to the British Museum, there is a
possible conflict of interest.
The British Museum may be the only buyer in the market for the treasure
as well as the administrator of the organisation, and it may look to
put downward pressure on the price. That could be to the detriment of
some of that treasure reaching museums.
It is also
worth pointing out that the portable antiquities scheme has great
importance in a number of other areas, including advancing
archaeological knowledge, combating illegal trading in antiquities,
which I suspect will become ever greater now that we have opened our
doors to China, India and Russia, and providing education and outreach
services. I am acutely aware, as I know that the Minister is, that many
of our museums do a lot of unsung work in education and outreach. We
support that very much. The financial pressures on the British Museum
may be tested to breaking point given some of the new responsibilities
that will be placed on it under the order.
This has been a useful debate.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, as well as
those of other hon. Members.
4.41
pm
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): Speaking for the Liberal
Democrats, I want to say that the proposed revisions to the Treasure
Act code of practice are welcome. The transfer of administrative
responsibilities during the valuation and post-valuation stages of
handling treasure finds from the DCMS to the British Museum will
simplify the process, reduce duplication and improve the service to
users, as intended in the legislation. The current system requires the
completion, for example, of two sets of forms and liaison with two sets
of administrators. That slows down the process and causes confusion for
both the finders of treasure and the institutions that attempt to
acquire it. The simplification and streamlining of the procedures is
highly welcome.
Consultation about the changes
has been broad, and the responses that were received from the heritage
sector and metal detectorist organisations were unanimously positive
about the proposals. All those involved expect that the revisions to
the code will absolutely improve the situation. However, there are a
number of concerns about some of the details, although not about the
measure in general or its intent.
The British Museum,
as we have heard, is happy to take on the functions. It knows that it
has the expertise and that the change will streamline and improve the
system. It is concerned, however, about resource issues. The DCMS has
agreed to transfer the costs of administration to the British Museum,
but will the Minister assure us that the current level of funding for
administration will be maintained beyond March 2008, not just at the
current level but inflation-proofed into the future?
The DCMS, in its explanatory
memorandum, states that efficiency savings are expected in the transfer
of responsibilities. Will those efficiency savings go to the Treasury
or DCMS, or will they be reinvested in the
sector?
Andrew
Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I am genuinely grateful to the
hon. Gentleman. I just want to test him. He referred to the explanatory
memorandum—I do
not mean this facetiously, because when I catch your eye, Mr Wilshire, I
am going to give the Minister four out of 10 for his
homework—but where does the hon. Gentleman think that it is in
this gobbledegook document, which is not
user-friendly?
