| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked an intriguing question about inheritance tax. Of course, the Government are very keen to ensure that loopholes in inheritance tax are closed at the earliest opportunity. I know there are those who would wish to abolish inheritance tax, but perhaps that is a debate for another occasion. The Government have assisted some of these products which were in danger of being caught by the pre-owned assets legislation. Regulations came into force on6 April 2005 which introduced an exemption for equity release arrangements from the pre-owned assets charge. The commitment was made by the Paymaster General in autumn 2004 that arm’s-length equity release transactions would be exempt from the pre-owned assets charge, even if the owner sells only part of their home. That was a facilitating measure and not a restrictive one. The fundamental point is that we need
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1163
I thank noble Lords for their support for the order. If the order is approved tonight, the FSA will be able shortly to open its doors for applications from firms carrying out regulated activities. This will give firms the necessary time to prepare for the start of regulation next year. Subject to the order completing its passage through Parliament this evening, the FSA will take a further important step when it publishes its detailed rules and guidance next week. As set out in this legislation, regulation will take effect from 6 April 2007.
In general, our approach throughout has been to establish a new regulatory regime, broadly equivalent to the existing mortgage regime. It is only right that consumers of home reversion plans and Ijara home financing arrangements benefit from consumer protections afforded by FSA regulation, and I think that that view is widely held. This will strengthen confidence in the market, and consumer confidence is an essential base for diverse and competitive markets. That is an outcome which I think your Lordships will be keen to support, therefore I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Draft Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (Second Revision) England and Wales
7.53 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on20 July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate relates to proposed revisions to the code of practice published under the Treasure Act 1996 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It 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 fact that certain administrative responsibilities relating to the valuation of finds of treasure and the payment of rewards are to be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the British Museum.
Currently the DCMS undertakes a number of responsibilities relating to the valuation of treasure finds and the payment of rewards to finders and landowners. It is intended to transfer, with conditions, these responsibilities, in respect of finds made in England and Wales, to the British Museum. The museum already undertakes a number of other responsibilities in relation to the administration of the Treasure Act 1996.
This transfer of responsibilities is designed to have two primary benefits. It will improve the service offered to those who report and acquire treasure. No
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1164
We recognise that the British Museum is a potential purchaser of treasure finds and, at the same time, under these proposals, it will also be responsible for the administration of the system which recommends to the Secretary of State the price that museums should pay for such finds. It is because of these concerns that a number of safeguards have been built into this transfer to preserve the integrity of the system. These include: 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 also retain its responsibilities relating to valuation in cases where 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 for interested parties to make representations to the Secretaryof State against the Treasure Valuation Committee’s recommendations will remain; and a detailed memorandum of understanding will be agreed between the DCMS and the British Museum. This will spell out the responsibilities of both organisations and will be available for public scrutiny. We feel confident that these safeguards will ensure that the system retains a high level of confidence among those involved that all finds are 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. A full review of the code is planned for 2007, when other proposed amendments to the treasure system will be considered. However, the last review of the code took two years to complete and it was considered that the benefits associated with this transfer were sufficiently compelling for these amendments to be made in advance of the forthcoming review.
Both the principle behind the amendments to the code of practice and the amendments themselves have been consulted on. The consultation documents were sent to stakeholders, including the British Museum, the National Council for Metal Detecting and various museums and their representative bodies. All responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposed transfer of responsibilities and of the proposed amendments to the code. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 20 July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1165
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the code. It seems to us to be logical. I know that many groups have been consulted. Moving the responsibility from the DCMS to the British Museum, with the appropriate safeguards, makes all the sense in the world because the British Museum has extensive knowledge. Of course, it will cut down on some of the costs involved.
One issue that we have to raise is that of integrity. The Minister said that while those bringing forward treasure would have to feel that they were receiving a fair price, the Treasure Act itself is a law to try to stop those who take part in illicit activities and do not bring forward treasure finds to be valued. That is one of our major problems: the system of “night hawking” by metal detectorists who raid some of our find sites, taking metal objects which could have been used for dating purposes.
It is unfortunate that no prosecution has taken place under the Treasure Act, which is of course a valuable tool to show where the law lies. It has, however, been extremely difficult to bring about a prosecution. Despite some good work done by the police, the value of these finds often means that no prosecution is made, even though the damage to our ancient monuments in the acquisition of those illicit objects should not be underestimated.
8 pm
I raise this issue because the DCMS is giving up a responsibility to the British Museum. We should be looking carefully at the enforcement of the Treasure Act. This is one aspect of the Treasure Act, but we must also ensure that people are aware of the functioning of the Act. That has been undertaken by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which is also based at the British Museum. There are 49 find liaison officers who liaise with finders and ensure that much of the information is gathered and recorded. The Portable Antiquities Scheme was originally set up with lottery funding, but the DCMS has taken on board that it has a responsibility to fund the scheme. Without the scheme—the linchpin of the Treasure Act—the Act would be worthless to a degree, because few people would know of its provisions and comply with them.
I raise this issue because Portable Antiquities Scheme funding is currently under threat. Under the spending review for 2007, there has been a requirement to make cuts, year on year, of 7 per cent. That means that the Portable Antiquities Scheme would lose 19 posts by 2010, making it inoperable. There would then be a question mark over whether the Government were doing enough to ensure that the Treasure Act was properly supported. I asked the Government whether they could give an assurance that this would be reviewed; there is a review of the Portable Antiquities Scheme next year. It would be helpful, however, if the DCMS could give some assurance that the very linchpin of the Treasure Act is not going to be removed through funding cuts.
Lending support to the idea that this must be done, objects are coming up for sale on the illicit market. One of the major ways in which illicit objects are now
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1166
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I, too, welcome these provisions, and the success of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme as a whole. These revisions, savings and proposed rationalisations are clearly entirely appropriate. Much of the scientific work is done at the British Museum.
However, the Minister was a little modest in his presentation of the scheme. One reason for the formal transfer of many of these responsibilities to the British Museum is the formidable success of the Treasure Act, as reinforced by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. I do not think the late, lamented Lord Perth, when he was so vigorously pressing for the new Treasure Act, passed in 1996, could quite have envisaged the success of the scheme. In that year, about 25 treasure trove finds went through the appropriate procedure. In the most recent year for which we have figures, 2005, it was something like 596: an increase by a factor of 20. It has been an enormous success. As I shall say in a moment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has indicated, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the finds liaison officers have played an important part in that process.
The very success of the treasure trove scheme means that many more pieces are being offered to the nation’s museums, including the British Museum, and which it is desirable to acquire. Fortunately, it has been possible to provide the funding, in large measure through the Heritage Lottery Fund as well as the Victoria and Albert Museum scheme. I declare a benign interest as a trustee of the Art Fund which has also played a role. It is suggested that the Heritage Lottery Fund is likely to play a decreasing role in future. I wonder whether it is not time for the Government to set aside a modest sum—£1 million a year or so—for treasure acquisition. Otherwise, there will be a considerable problem.
Wonderful things have been acquired in recent years. One of the most remarkable was the Ringlemere cup: a wonderful gold cup from the beginning of the early Bronze Age, around 2000 BC, which compares with the Rillaton cup. I remind the House that the treasure scheme has been updated from earlier days. I think I am right in saying that on the death of King George V, the Rillaton cup was found on his desk, containing his cufflinks. In those days the treasure system clearly worked in a less formal manner than today. I am sure we welcome that, and the fact that it is now safely in the British Museum.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1167
This is linked to the great success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The finds liaison officers, as the House will know, encourage not only the effective operation of the Treasure Act, but also the voluntary reporting of antiquities, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, reminded us., These antiquities are not treasure—they are not gold, silver or whatever—but are worth recording. In 2005, 57,000 antiquities were so recorded. The scheme is an enormous success on which the Government are warmly to be congratulated. It also has an outreach dimension: there are millions of hits on the website associated with the scheme, and the very efficient team based at the British Museum goes to schools and gives lectures. The nation’s treasure is not only being put in the right place—in museums, in many cases—but is being of educational value.
If I may be even more affable about the Government, it has been a good decade for antiquities. It started in 1996, when there was still a Conservative Government, as the Minister will recall, but since then a number of significant steps have safeguarded antiquities in this country. The ratification of the 1970 UNESCO convention by this government is one of them, and the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003—in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had a significant hand—was a great step forward. However, the Act does not work retrospectively and, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am still uneasy about some of the things that go on.
For instance, the Sevso treasure was recently exhibited in a London saleroom. It is not believed to have been found in this country—although I do not think the Minister could give me an assurance that it was not—and it was probably exported from its country of origin, almost certainly illegally, after 1970 and must therefore be of uncertain ownership. I find it difficult to see how the Government could grant it an export licence. However, we cannot blame the Government for the failure of the legislation at that point because of the convention that legislation does not act retrospectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said in today’s Guardian, it is a knotty problem that requires resolution, but that will not be easy. However, the larger picture has been entirely positive.
I shall conclude on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, by pointing out that the success of the working of the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme depends on the team of 47 or so people based at the British Museum who work in liaison with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Comprehensive Spending Review is causing anxiety among those of us who admire the working of the scheme. I am told that it will require about £1.5 million to operate at the present level in 2008-09 and about £1.6 million in 2010. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I ask the Minister to consider ring-fencing those sums so that the scheme can go forward.
It is sometimes said that the present Government are looking for a legacy. There may be some areas where the legacy does not command my entire admiration, but in this area, for which the Minister is responsible, it is a fine legacy, and my advice to the Government is to safeguard it by ring-fencing it. I am therefore happy to support the code.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1168
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for his comments about the advances we have made in allocating finds to their proper place, which, in many cases, is for the good of the nationin museums. I could expand his praise of recent developments in terms of museum attendance, the figures for which are so much higher than they were in the recent past. That reflects the fact that we now address ourselves to a nation that is much more aware of this legacy and of the enormous rewards than can be derived from our museums and that takes a keen interest in this subject. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy.
Both noble Lords stretched the discussion on the code. I sought to emphasise not only that the code of practice is based on rationality, but also that there are administrative gains by effecting reductions in unnecessary expenditure, thereby releasing funds for necessary expenditure. I hope the noble Lords recognise that we are concerned about these matters, but they ranged much more widely than that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we have a genuine problem with those who do not declare their finds. Those involved in detection give enormous help in rescuing treasure. They play their part in archaeological digs and engage in their own forays. Many honest citizens and true ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, indicated, finds become available, and proper rewards go to those who have discovered them and to those on whose land they have been found.
8.15 pm
However, there is the hidden market and the substantial activity—although we are not able to quantify it with any accuracy—of those who do not follow the procedures that we expect them to with regard to such finds. That is a genuine problem. The British Museum, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and eBay have recently produced a partnership agreement so that eBay can be alerted to items on its site that may be unreported treasure finds. Of course not everything will be sold through eBay, but there is no doubt that this action will potentially close down the illicit activity of people advertising their finds when they have no right to be selling them. We are concerned to block that.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggests about greater activity by my department in pursuit of the illegal. That is not the direct responsibility of the DCMS. The Home Office is concerned with illegal acts. It is very much in the nation’s interest that we reduce such illegal activity to the absolute minimum, but the noble Lord will recognise that prosecuting authorities will act only on clear evidence that such activity has occurred. That is not easy to establish, as I am sure he will recognise.
Both noble Lords indicated that departmental cuts might affect the efficiency with which the work is carried out. All departments are under the rubric of finding efficiency gains. The DCMS and its supporting agencies are in the same position as others. The noble
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1169
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—he will not mind if I say it on this occasion—predictably raised the issue of the Sevso treasure. I did not think that I could stand at the Dispatch Box this evening and introduce an instrument with the word “treasure” in it without the Sevso treasure being mentioned. I assure the House that the Government have not been asked to grant an export licence. If they are, they will consider whether they have any discretion in the matter. Although we cannot guarantee where the Sevso treasure was found or who owns it, there are sufficient vigorous claims around for the Government to be unlikely to need to decide whether there should be an export order. I cannot go any further than that from the Dispatch Box—and the noble Lord will recognise why I cannot—but we obviously have a keen interest in the outcome if the Sevso treasure actually comes to market. There are great uncertainties about all aspects of the Sevso treasure. The nation is right—and I am glad that the noble Lord raised the matter this evening—to be alert to the problems attendant on that.
I want to say how much I appreciate the constructive way in which both noble Lords discussed the issues this evening. Both of them have contributed an enormous amount to this work over the years. If I introduced the Motion modestly, it is because, as I am all too well aware, I personally have a great deal to be modest about, in comparison with the two noble Lords who have spoken on the issue. What is more, a guiding light of the department is to do as much good by stealth as we are able. The code of practice, which is in the public domain without stealth, will, I hope, do good. Accordingly, I commend it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.30 pm.]
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |