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

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. This is linked to the great success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The finds liaison officers, as the House will know, not only encourage the effective operation of the Treasure Act, but also the voluntary reporting of antiquities, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has reminded us, which are not treasure—they are not gold, silver or whatever—but which 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.