| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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.
Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (Revised) (England and Wales) 2002
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone : My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft code of practice laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) (Amendment) Order 2002
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order concerns the functions of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The MLC was established by the Agriculture Act 1967 with the general aim of promoting the efficiency of the livestock industry in Great Britain. As a consequence of devolution, however, provision must be made to allow the development of regionally appropriate strategies in the red meat sector. The red meat sector is important to Scotland as it accounts for 42 per cent of the value of Scottish primary agricultural production and has an annual output value of £770 million. Furthermore, Scotland has 29 per cent of UK beef
cattle and 21 per cent of the UK sheep flock. These forms of agriculture account for more than 10 per cent of GDP in some areas of Scotland.Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) was established in 1999 to support the red meat industry, primarily by promoting Scottish red meat. It was formed by the MLC with the National Farmers' Union for Scotland and the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers.
QMS derives its functions and a large part of its funding from the MLC. The MLC has the statutory responsibility to promote greater efficiency in the livestock industry in Great Britain. To this end, the MLC collects general and promotional levies on slaughtered or exported cattle, sheep and pigs. The promotional levy is used for promotion or undertaking arrangements for advertising the merits and increasing the species promotion sales, in GB or elsewhere, of livestock and livestock products.
QMS funding is currently based on the Scottish promotional levy. The Scottish general levy is currently retained by the MLC, which takes responsibility for functions such as collection of market information, research and product development, livestock improvement, training and health education.
Devolution has highlighted the need for a distinctive and locally appropriate strategy for each part of Great Britain and for new accountability arrangements between the MLC and Scottish Ministers. The Scottish executive undertook a consultation exercise to gauge industry views on strengthening the role of QMS. The consultation was based on four core proposals: that QMS became responsible, on behalf of MLC, for all MLC functions in Scotland; that QMS be given the autonomy to develop a strategy for Scotland focused on Scottish red meat development and promotional priorities; that QMS receives the full Scottish general and promotional levies to address Scottish priorities for red meat; and, that QMS continues to invest in GB level MLC services where this confers benefits on the Scottish industry.
Respondents to the consultation included all of the key stakeholder groups in the Scottish red meat sector. They indicated a high level of support for the proposals. The Meat and Livestock Commission has also been consulted on the terms of the order, as is required by Section 89 of the Scotland Act.
Respondents to the consultation expressed a view that continued links with the MLC were important—links that would prevent duplication of effort, ensure the retention of valued services, protect core expertise and maintain the integrity of GB programmes, while at the same time securing best value for the Scottish red meat sector.
The order before us today makes provisions in relation to the financial arrangements, control and accountability of the MLC. It will transfer to Scottish Executive Ministers the function of giving general directions to the MLC in relation to the use of the Scottish levy. To achieve this, the order will require the agriculture Ministers—that is, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Scottish
Executive Ministers and the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development—acting jointly to make a determination to define the basis for the Scottish levy.Conversely, it will also require that the function of giving directions in relation to the use of the levy for England and Wales will cease to be exercisable by Scottish Ministers.
The order will also require the MLC to prepare for Scottish Ministers an annual report on the discharge of its functions. This will be an important part of strengthening accountability to Scottish Ministers.
The order will not, however, change the arrangements for the setting of the Scottish levy or the collection of the levy and it will not affect the MLC's status as a Great Britain body.
The delegation from MLC to QMS of functions in Scotland will be achieved through a joint ministerial direction. This will be made under the provisions of the Agriculture Act 1967 subsequent to the making of this order. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page