Draft Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (Second Revision) England and Wales

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 we have: the system of ““night hawking”” by metal detectorists who raid some of our fine 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. 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 being traded is through eBay. The Portable Antiquities Scheme has done good work in monitoring what is happening on eBay. However, while the scheme and the Treasure Act have been incredibly successful in bringing forward treasure items to be valued and therefore saved for the nation—some of these items are quite exquisite—there is a growing market in illicit British finds being sold. I therefore hope that the Government will not pass off their responsibilities to other departments, such as the British Museum, and pass up their responsibility for paying for them.