Draft Treasure (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2023 Draft Treasure Act 1996: Code of Practice (3rd Revision)

Debate between John Howell and Tim Loughton

Monday 13th March 2023 General Committees

[Tim Loughton]

That was a terrible faux pas of mine. I apologise, Ms Bardell. I am delighted that the Minister is so excited by the order.

Some 26 years ago, when I first came into the House, one of my first SI Committees was on some of the first regulations to the Treasure Act 1996. I remember having a lengthy debate with the then Minister, who I think was a Member for Sheffield Central, about whether medieval Sheffield slag would be included in the qualifications. That is exactly what these regulations will now do, so the measure is long overdue. We have waited several years to get these changes to the Treasure Act, which I welcome and will certainly support.

The British Museum—I declare an interest—manages the portable antiquities scheme, it provides the secretariat for the Treasure Valuation Committee, and the treasure registry is based there, so it is absolutely central. I should also say that Mike Heyworth—the Minister referred to his report—provides the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary archaeology group.

The portable antiquities scheme has been a huge success by any measure. To date, it has recorded more than 1.6 million finds on its online databases. Its finds liaison officers are based around the country and have played a part in reigniting the general public’s interest in archaeology, along with the popular television programme, “Detectorists”.

[John Howell]

I declare that I, too, am a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and a long-established archaeologist. My hon. Friend mentions the success of the portable antiquities scheme. Does he not think that that means that the term “treasure” is outdated and that we should take the definitions of the scheme?

[Tim Loughton]

This Committee is in danger of having an awful lot of talent on it who know a bit about the subject; I will come on to exactly that point.

In my county of Sussex, the portable antiquities scheme has so far registered almost 40,000 finds, and there have been 486 pieces of treasure across East and West Sussex since the Treasure Act. On average, as the Minister mentioned, between 20% and 30% of those declarations end up in museums, so there has been a substantial increase in the amount of antiquities of interest available for public viewing, interpretation and explanation, which must be a good thing.

This is a good measure, as far as it goes, because the Treasure Act, which enables museums to acquire items more than 300 years old, as we have heard, based on the content of gold and silver, will now be extended to base metal items. That would have included the Crosby Garrett helmet; the Ryedale Yorkshire hoard, which recently came up for auction and ended up in a museum; and the Staffordshire Moorlands pan. However, that is based on their cultural and archaeological significance as an aspect of their

“national or regional history, archaeology or culture”

by virtue of their rarity, where they were found, or their connection to a person or event.

It is envisaged that, with the extension of the definitions, only something like 100 additional finds a year will meet the criteria, so it does not place a hugely onerous additional burden on the Treasure Valuation Committee, the museums and the FLOs. To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I ask why it has stopped at metal items, because the whole principle behind the changes is to recognise that items are of cultural interest regardless of the material from which they are made. They may sound more like treasure because they are made of gold, silver or other precious metals, but for an archaeologist or somebody studying history, that is frankly immaterial to their potential cultural significance and uniqueness.

So, may I ask again why the Minister has not extended the definitions to non-metal items? There is a precedent, because the definitions have been extended on the Isle of Man, whose treasure law otherwise mirrors the Treasure Act 1996, so that they can take in non-metallic items. This is a serious question. I do not believe that it is one of capacity, based on the estimates of the increased workload from the extension of the criteria. Could the extension at least be piloted now in certain parts of the country, say, where there is sufficient capacity to take on additional items that just happen not to be metallic?

The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists has raised this point and it specifically referred to palaeolithic hand axes or other organic materials, such as worked wood. Such wood is certainly rare, in terms of its capacity for preservation, when it is dug out of the ground, and culturally and archaeologically it may be hugely more significant than a gold coin found in situ.

I will take the second point that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley made, too, about whether we should still use the terminology of “treasure” when it really promotes the wrong image. The legislation is moving in the right direction to recognise the cultural and archaeological significance of finds, rather than what they are made of. Should we not refer instead to significant antiquities in terms of their cultural significance rather than in terms of their financial value? I think the Government have perhaps missed a trick here, because they are embedding the impression that treasure is only something that is bright, shiny and made of metal, when not all treasure is.

There is a third consideration, which I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to. The rolling date for treasure, which is still to be used, is considered by many to add unnecessary bureaucracy to the system; people constantly have to change the date where the 200-year criteria now apply. There is a body of support for having this date as a fixed date in the legislation. Perhaps she will say why that is not the case in the regulations.

Also, in the guidance that accompanies these regulations, there are lots of useful additions. The guidance gives greater clarity on what items are treasure, and why; it better explains the role of the portable antiquities scheme and how it works alongside local coroners; it clarifies the legal obligations of those who find treasure, setting out what their responsibilities are; it gives clearer timelines for the processing of treasure; and it explains better that treasure is owned by the Crown and that rewards are made at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Sport and Media.

That is all welcome, but further work is required—again, perhaps the Minister can give some clue as to whether this work will be undertaken—to examine the impact that the exponential growth in metal detecting over the past 20 years has had on the portable antiquities scheme.

In terms of value for money, the portable antiquities scheme is one of the most efficient investments by the taxpayer. For a relatively small amount of money—in excess of £1 million—we achieve greater awareness of our past and of the importance of antiquities, and better governance of metal detectorists in bringing their finds to public display through the finds liaison officers and ultimately, in some cases, museum, and that is hugely welcome. However, I do not think that the guidance has moved on quite as much as it needs to. By and large, metal detectorists are a responsible bunch, but there are nighthawkers who can cause serious damage to scheduled sites. Will there be additional work on further guidance, given the number of people who are now involved in metal detecting and associated leisure activities?

I will raise a final point, regarding the exemptions for the Church of England, which the Minister did not really touch on those. The explanatory notes to the regulations state that the proposal to remove from the definition of treasure finds that fall under the legal processes of the Church of England was included in the 2019 public consultations. The result was that 30.9% of those who expressed a view were supportive of the proposal and 30.1% expressed disagreement, which is an even narrower margin than in the Brexit referendum. Views were clearly split. Can the Minister flesh out the reasons the Church of England continues to benefit from the exemptions? What are the upsides or downsides of that?

Overall, though I hope I have been constructively critical, I certainly welcome these long-overdue new regulations. They put the Treasure Act 1996 on a much sturdier footing, but have gone halfway to conceding the principle that treasure is not just shiny, precious metal. How much longer will we have to wait until the Government go the whole way so that we can embrace, appreciate and safeguard items of archaeological or cultural significance that happen not to be made of a valuable commodity? Although I support the measures, I would appreciate some additional clarification from the Minister.