| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I find the matter somewhat surprising. I thought that there was a broad degree of consensus in the House that we should tighten provisions to prevent fraud. We now learn from certain quarters that they are too tight because people cannot fill in the various forms. It would have been useful to have had that information during the passage of the Bill. I find the matter somewhat ironic.
We welcome the order because it reflects what we were trying to do in the Bill. I thank the Lord Privy Seal for proposing the order.
I have several questions. First, how are the provisions being received in Northern Ireland? That relates to the technical difficulties that have already been alluded to; people cannot actually fill in the forms. Secondly, how is the public awareness campaign on the change in the election laws going? Thirdly, can the Government give any indication as to the take up rate for the electoral identity card? Finally, can the Government assure the House that it is still their intention to remove the non-photographic forms of identification from the list of specified documents?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for the general support given to the order, because it is, as I said earlier, the mirror of the general election arrangements that were improved and approved by the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, pointed out—and his remarks were echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith—that there had been a certain amount of confusion about the fact that these were new arrangements. I recognise those as legitimate points. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, put the matter slightly differently; he asked how the provisions have been received. I believe that there has been some confusion. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that the Chief Electoral Officer is aware of those problems which have been identified. He proposes to contact those people who have completed the forms wrongly to see how he can assist them and identify the problems so that the forms can be properly filled out.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for that very welcome news. But there is a second problem; that is the people who have not even returned the forms. It is good to know that those who have returned incorrectly completed forms will be contacted. But I fear that there are many thousands who will not have returned them. As the House will be aware, originally there was only one form for each household. Now there is one for each elector. Many
are not returning the forms. That will be the interesting question: how many have been returned on this particular occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not have up-to-date figures on that. I recognise the problem. The electoral officer has been imaginative and flexible in dealing with the problem identified by the noble Lord. Voter education—this matter arises from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Smith—is now the responsibility of the electoral commission. It has committed £0.5 million of funding to the registration campaign. That included television advertising, an information leaflet delivered with each electoral registration form and posters around Northern Ireland.
I agree with the subpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that it is important that people who may be a little uncertain and perhaps a little bewildered should be encouraged to fill up their forms. However—manifold as my responsibilities are—I do not think that they include making sure that everyone who should fill in a form has done so.
I am grateful for the general support. I cannot deal with the take up rate. If I receive further details I shall write to all noble Lords who have contributed today. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his comments.
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that this is a local election order. I know that the normal parameters of relevance do not pertain to debates in Northern Ireland—never should that change. I take her points on electronic voting and on violence, from whichever side. If we have the best electoral arrangements that we can achieve—and we have made significant steps in this House—there is no conceivable excuse for violence, whoever perpetrates it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Treasure (Designation) Order 2002
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: A 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 government 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 Apri1. 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.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page