Mr.
Bellingham: I am grateful for the Minister’s
response. I look forward to hearing from her in writing about the two
tragic cases that I mentioned, and I commend her on the way in which
she responded to them. The Bill will go a long way to sorting out some
of the problems that have arisen, although it might not solve the
immediate problems faced by the families. Hopefully, she will consider
my comments and will come back to me with some ideas on how to address
the situation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
19 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
20Investigations
concerning
treasure Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: new clause 1— Coroner for treasure and assistant
coroners for
treasure— ‘(1) The Lord
Chancellor may appoint a coroner, to be known as the Coroner for
Treasure. (2) The Chief Coroner
may designate one or more assistant coroners to act as Assistant
Coroners for Treasure. (3) The
Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in relation to the
Coroner for Treasure and Assistant Coroners for
Treasure.’. New
clause 2—Investigations in relation to
treasure— ‘(1) The
Coroner for Treasure must conduct an investigation in relation to an
object in respect of which notification is given under section 8(1) or
8A(1) of the Treasure Act 1996 (c. 24) (but this is subject to section
[Exception to duty to
investigate]).
(2) The Coroner for Treasure may conduct an
investigation in relation to an object which he has reason to suspect
is treasure and in respect of which notification has not been given
under section 8(1) or 8A(1) of that Act (but this is subject to
section 38). (3) The
purpose of an investigation in relation to an object under this section
is to ascertain— (a)
whether the object is treasure,
and (b) if it is treasure, who
found it, where it was found and when it was
found. (4) Senior coroners,
area coroners and assistant coroners are to have no functions in
relation to objects which are or may be treasure (but this is subject
to any provision which may be made by regulations under section
[Coroner for treasure and assistant coroners for treasure] which
enables an assistant coroner acting as an Assistant Coroner for
Treasure to perform functions of the Coroner for
Treasure).’. New
clause 3—Inquests in relation to
treasure— ‘(1) The
Coroner for Treasure may, as part of an investigation in relation to an
object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure], hold an
inquest in relation to the
object. (2) Such an inquest
must be held without a
jury.’. New
clause 4—Outcome of investigations in relation to
treasure— ‘(1)
After considering the evidence in the case of an investigation in
relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to
treasure] which is conducted without an inquest, the Coroner for
Treasure must make a determination as to the matters mentioned in
subsection (3)(a) and (where applicable) (3)(b) of that
section. (2) After hearing the
evidence in the case of an investigation in relation to an object under
section [Investigations in relation to treasure] which is conducted
with an inquest, the Coroner for Treasure must make a determination as
to the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (where applicable)
(3)(b) of that
section.’. New
clause 5—Exception to duty to
investigate— ‘(1)
This section applies
where— (a) the Coroner
for Treasure is conducting, or proposes to conduct, an investigation in
relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to
treasure], and (b) if the
object were in fact treasure, it would vest in the Crown by virtue of
section 4(1)(b) of the Treasure Act 1996 (c.
24). (2) The Secretary of State
may give notice in writing to the Coroner for Treasure that he would
not wish the object, if it were in fact treasure, to vest in the
Crown. (3) Such a notice may be
given only before the making of a determination under section [Outcome
of investigations in relation to
treasure]. (4) Where such a
notice is given— (a) it
is to be treated as disclaiming any title that the Crown may have to
the object, (b) the object is
to be treated as not having vested in the Crown under the Treasure Act
1996, (c) the Coroner for
Treasure may not conduct an investigation in relation to the object
under section [Investigations in relation to treasure] or (as the case
may be) continue with such an investigation,
and (d) without prejudice to
the interests or rights of others, the object may be delivered to any
person in accordance with a code of practice published under section 11
of the Treasure Act
1996.’. New
clause 6—Codes of practice under the Treasure Act
1996— ‘(1) A code
of practice under section 11 of the Treasure Act 1996 may
make provision in relation to objects in respect of
which notice is given under section [Exception to duty to
investigate](2). (2) No civil
liability on the part of the Coroner for Treasure arises where he
delivers any object, or takes any other action, in accordance with a
code of practice under section 11 of that
Act.’. New
clause 7—Amendments of the Treasure Act
1996— ‘The Lord
Chancellor may by regulations make amendments to the Treasure Act 1996
in connection with investigations
etc.’. New
clause 33—Amendment of Treasure Act
1996— ‘After
section 8 of the Treasure Act 1996 (c. 24),
insert— “8A Duty
to notify coroner of acquisition of certain
objects (1) A person
who— (a) acquires
property in an object, and (b)
believes or has reasonable grounds for
believing— (i) that the
object is treasure, and (ii)
that notification in respect of the object has not been given under
section 8(1) of this
subsection, must notify the
Coroner for Treasure before the end of the notice
period. (2) The notice period
is fourteen days beginning
with— (a) the day after
he acquires property in the object;
or (b) if later, the day on
which he first believes or has reason to
believe— (i) that the
object is treasure; and (ii)
that notification in respect of the object has not been given under
section 8(1) or subsection (1) of this
section. (3) Any person who
fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence
if— (a) notification in
respect of the object has not been given under section 8(1) or
subsection (1) of this section;
and (b) there has been no
investigation in relation to the
object. (4) Any person guilty
of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction
to— (a) imprisonment for
a term not exceeding the relevant
maximum; (b) a fine of an
amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
or (c)
both. (5) In proceedings for an
offence under this section, it is a defence for the defendant to show
he had, and has continued to have, a reasonable excuse for failing to
notify the Coroner for
Treasure. (6) If the office of
Coroner for Treasure is vacant, notification under subsection (1) must
be given to the Chief
Coroner. (7) In determining for
the purposes of this section whether a person has acquired property in
an object, section 4 is to be
disregarded. (8) In this
section “investigation” means an investigation under
section [Investigations in relation to treasure] of the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009. 8B Duty to
deliver object to coroner (1)
Where the Coroner for Treasure is conducting, or proposes to conduct,
an investigation in relation to an object under section [Investigations
in relation to treasure] of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, he may
direct a person who has control of the object to deliver the object to
a designated person before the end of the period of fourteen days
beginning with the day after the direction is given to
him. (2) Any person who fails
to comply with a direction under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence
and liable on summary conviction
to— (a) imprisonment for
a term not exceeding the relevant maximum;
(b) a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the
standard scale; or (c)
both. (3) In proceedings for
an offence under this section, it is a defence for the defendant to
show he had, and has continued to have, a reasonable excuse for failing
to comply with the
direction. (4) For the purposes
of this section a person has control of an object if he has possession,
or a right to possession, of it; and in determining for those purposes
whether a person has a right to possession of an object, section 4 is
to be disregarded. (5) In this
section “designated person” means a person designated in
a code of practice under section
11. 8C
Offences: further provision (1)
Proceedings for an offence under section 8, 8A or 8B may be brought
within the period of six months from the date on which evidence
sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings
came to his knowledge; but no such proceedings may be brought by virtue
of this subsection more than three years after the commission of the
offence. (2) For the purposes
of subsection (1)— (a) a
certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the
date on which evidence sufficient in his opinion to warrant the
proceedings came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that
fact; and (b) a certificate
stating that matter and purporting to be so signed shall be deemed to
be so signed unless the contrary is
proved. (3) For the purposes of
sections 8A and 8B “the relevant maximum”
is— (a) in England and
Wales, 51 weeks; (b) in
Northern Ireland, three
months. (4) In relation to an
offence committed before the commencement of paragraph 48 of Schedule
26 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in
subsection (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference
to three
months.”’.
Mr.
Bellingham: This is an extremely important clause, and it
would be made a great deal more effective by the new clauses that we
have tabled. They would, in effect, bring back the proposal to set up a
coroner for treasure that was contained in the original draft
Bill.
I shall
provide some background and history, because it might be of interest to
the Committee. The Treasure Act 1996 provided a new definition of finds
that must be reported to coroners as treasure, and which are then
offered to museums to acquire. This process has turned out to be very
successful: before 1996 there were roughly 25 finds a year, but last
year there were 804, in 2007 there were about 700, and in 2006 there
were 600. In other words, a large number of finds are being reported
that were not reported previously.
The new
system is working well. For example, in my constituency, a few years
ago, some Iron Age gold torcs were found in and around a village called
Snettisham. That gave rise to a great deal of local publicity as they
were worth a huge amount of money and are now in Norwich museum. That
was a major local event that obviously brought a great deal of money to
the finder and owner of the land on which the torcs were found. In
practice, most reported finds are sent on to the finds liaison officers
of the portable antiquities scheme, who liaise with the British Museum,
whose staff then write a
report. The
coroners hold an inquest into finds wanted by museums. In 2007, I
understand, fewer than 300 cases went to an inquest. Often, the inquest
is a small paper exercise, and a major inquest will only take place if
there is a dispute with the museum. The remaining cases are disclaimed
and the objects returned to the owner of the land or the finder.
However, the truncated inquest process still takes up time. The find
will be valued by the Treasure Valuation Committee, and the money split
between the landowner and finder. There is a
need for speed. Finders—the metal detectors—whom we see
from time to time in fields around our constituencies, are a dedicated
bunch of enthusiasts. However, they are often impetuous; they want
their money and there is always a temptation to put their finds on eBay
and sell them quickly. Unscrupulous metal detectorists may do that, but
we hope that they are few in number. The Treasure Act 1996 code of
practice states that the reward should be paid within 12
months. For that to happen, coroners need to hold the inquest within 90
days. The problem is that the target is not being achieved. The picture
is erratic: for example, in Leicestershire and Rutland the average time
taken to hold an inquest is now 49 weeks; in Warwickshire, it is 40.6
weeks; in Northamptonshire, it is 36 weeks; in Wiltshire, it is 39
weeks; and in Norfolk, it is 24.5 weeks. Unfortunately, among the
coroners who are slowest at dealing with treasure cases is the one that
covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend. He has two
cases outstanding. One has taken three years and 20 weeks, and the
other has taken two years and three weeks—both cases are way
outside the Treasure Act code.
Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): To be fair to the
coroner for Bridgend, my hon. Friend is probably being rather unkind.
The coroner has a significant problem on his desk. To mention him as
being an offender in this matter seems a little
unfair.
Mr.
Bellingham: I was going to make the point—my hon.
Friend has done it for me—that it is not the coroner’s
fault. He has been facing huge pressure. That is why we need action.
That is why the draft Bill introduced a procedure for setting up a
coroner for treasure.
I shall cite
some remarks made by the Leader of the House, the right hon. and
learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), when responding
to a debate on coroner reform in February 2006, a debate in which I had
the privilege to speak. She said
that “treasure
trove is an ancient jurisdiction of coroners. Sometimes, such cases can
take two to three years to resolve, because treasure trove is always
put at the back of the queue and dealt with locally. That does not make
sense. We will make one coroner nationally responsible for treasure
trove and get that dealt with effectively.”—[Official
Report, 6 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 613.]
If it was sensible in
2006, why is it not sensible now? What the Government proposed then
makes a great deal of sense. There is obviously a need for action, but
the draft proposals have been dropped.
| 
