Mr.
Boswell: Does my hon. Friend not think it relevant that to
raise money for the Crown in mediaeval days the coroner had a series of
obligations, of which inquisitio—after death—was one?
Others, for example matters relating to sanctuary and felons, have
fallen away and only this one anomaly is left. It would seem to be
common sense, particularly if it is a military inquest or if there are
other foci of death, to transfer that particular specialist function to
a person appointed for the task.
Mr.
Bellingham: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely.
The
Minister suggests that one way to deal with the problem is through the
transfer of cases. In fact, if one examines what she says, it seems
that cases should be transferred, taken from those coroners who are
slow and given to the more efficient ones. A coroner may be under huge
pressure, which is made worse and added to by the number of treasure
cases. Is it sensible for those cases to be passed to another coroner?
Who will pay the costs of the transfer? The costs will obviously fall
on the local authority’s shoulders; it will be far from
pleased.
The costs of
setting up a coroner for treasure would not be significant. I am
indebted to the British Museum for coming up with some figures. It has
worked out that the cost of setting up a dedicated coroner for treasure
would be between £212,000 and £258,000 a year. A middle
figure would put it at about £225,000 a year. That is a
significant sum, but it is nevertheless only a small percentage of the
cost of the changes entailed in the Bill.
On the other
hand, there will be substantial savings if the work is moved from local
coroners’ areas to a national coroner for treasure. The British
Museum has come up with detailed figures. I will not go through the
method of calculation, but it considered the number of inquests, the
number of treasure inquests and the number of treasure inquests as a
percentage of the total. The British Museum has worked out that the net
savings based on a part-time coroner for treasure would be about
£400,000. If the coroner were full-time, the savings would be
slightly less. In other words, if we moved those cases away from the
counties and from the jurisdiction of the senior coroners and put them
in the hands of a dedicated national coroner for treasure, we would
save a substantial amount of money. Even on those figures, the scheme
would be entirely self-funding and cost-neutral.
I suggest
that there is even an argument for going further still. This may be
controversial—we want to consult on it—but I feel that
there is an argument for saying to the metal detecting community,
“Look, you’re out there making fascinating finds.
It’s in your interest to get paid as quickly as
possible.” In fact, only a couple of months ago, a local metal
detector found a mediaeval necklace in a field adjacent to where I live
that was valued at £20,000. It is a substantial amount; I was
sad that it was not over the boundary. That find is, obviously, of
great benefit to the finder. I would have thought that a small levy of
15 per cent. of the value of a find would not be that unpopular with
the metal detecting community.
If we had a
small levy in place, consider how much money it would bring in. For
example, there were 804 finds in 2008. The average value was
£2,000. The total was £1.6 million, so 15 per cent. of
that would be roughly £250,000. If we want to make the scheme
totally self-financing—indeed, to bring in extra money and
perhaps give the coroner for treasure extra resources—a small
levy might be a good way to move forward. I am not saying that we will
definitely do so, or table an amendment to do so, but a consultation on
the idea might make a lot of
sense. It
is important that we consider the other part of the Bill that has been
removed. It is of concern to me and to certain organisations. It is
important that people are encouraged to report finds. What happens at
the moment, generally, is that people report their finds, but new
clauses 1 to 7, which I tabled, would basically reintroduce the scheme
for establishing a national coroner for
treasure.
There are
other problems as well. Three other important measures are excluded
from the Bill that were in the original draft. One was the obligation
of anyone who comes into possession of treasure to report finds of
treasure. That is meant to cover the eBay point. As I understand it, a
small number of finds end up on eBay and are sold. The handlers of
those particular items are not committing any offence, nor can they be
pursued in any way, shape or form. If we put that measure back into the
Bill, as new clause 33 would do, that point would be
addressed.
Furthermore,
the other part of new clause 33 would give the coroner powers to
require anyone who reports the discovery of a find of treasure to
deliver it to the coroner. At the moment, the duty in the Treasure
Act 1996 simply requires finders to report their findings to
the coroner; they can, in theory, refuse to deliver them. New clause 33
would also allow more time for prosecutions under the Treasure Act 1996
to be brought. At the moment, there is a limitation of six months. We
think that that is inadequate. I agree with the draft Bill that that
period needs to be
extended. The
original proposals for setting up a coroner for treasure have the
support of a lot of organisations—obviously, the British Museum,
as well as the Institute of Archaeology, University college London, the
Society of Antiquaries of London, the all-party archaeological group
and the National Council for Metal Detecting. They are keen that the
original proposals under the draft Bill should go ahead. I hope that I
have made a strong case. It has been put to us by several
organisations, and I am particularly indebted to the British Museum for
its
briefing.
6
pm It
is not asking too much to question the Government about why they
removed from the draft Bill such excellent proposals and to suggest
that we could make matters self-financing. I entirely take on board the
Minister’s point that we do not want to burden her
Ministry’s budget at a time when budgets are under huge
pressure, but if we can win the argument about the scheme being
cost-neutral and top it up perhaps with a small levy—something
for discussion in the future—we will have a win-win
situation.
Jenny
Willott: I support all the hon. Gentleman’s
comments, and I have in fact added my name in support of the new
clauses. The Government’s proposal for a coroner for treasure
under the draft Bill was extremely popular. No one opposed it, so it is
unclear why it has now been withdrawn. Calculations have shown that
such an appointment can be put into practice at low cost, if any cost
at all. It might even save significant sums in the long
run. In
addition to the points made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk,
I draw attention to the statute of limitations for prosecutions under
the Treasure Act 1996. Prosecutions cannot be taken after
six months. Given the delays in many coroners’ areas for
understandable reasons, it means that the inquest would not have taken
place by the time the police need to decide whether to prosecute. There
have been a couple of cases when the police have not been able to
proceed because the inquest
had not taken place in time for them to do so. We want a system that
works and is effective. We want to encourage people to produce their
finds. We want coroners to undertake inquests and to know about the
historical artefacts that are found throughout the country. To enable
that to take place, we want to make sure that the reverse of what is
happening is in practice so that, if someone does not do what they are
supposed to do and does not report such matters to the authorities,
they can be prosecuted when necessary. Otherwise, the law will not
operate effectively. I hope that the Minister can take that point into
consideration in her
response. Bridget
Prentice: It is tempting to be persuaded by the argument
of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk not least because his
proposals are the same as those under the draft Bill. I cannot
therefore fault him on their accuracy. Nevertheless, other issues that
were in the draft Bill are no longer in the one before us. That might
be a matter of regret in some quarters, but the decision to remove the
proposal for a coroner for treasure was made on the basis that the
annual number of cases is between 600 and 800, only tens of which
result in inquests, so it was felt that they could be absorbed in the
system. Mr.
Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): On that basis, clause
11 ought to be excised from the Bill without further argument. The
Minister started off with two, and now she is down to
one.
Bridget
Prentice: That is not quite as persuasive an argument as
the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has just made. I shall leave it
there for the
moment. As
the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central highlighted, there is concern
about treasure cases being delayed. Coroners are dealing with
investigations into deaths and other matters. However, the arrangements
for investigating treasure cases will benefit from other parts of the
Bill. For example, coroners will be able to transfer treasure cases
between each other and take advantage of expertise that has been built
up, particularly in certain categories of treasure find. Also, the
chief coroner will be able to direct a case transfer to avoid delays
and backlogs, and take advantage of the expertise of other
coroners.
Mr.
Gray: While I remain puzzled why the Government removed
the idea of a treasures coroner from the Bill, the notion that somehow
the difficulty could be answered by shifting a case from one coroner to
another ignores the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill or
anywhere else, as far as I am aware, for moving money from one local
authority to another to follow a case. How will the Minister compensate
the receiving coroner, who could have large numbers of treasure cases
arriving at their
doorstep?
Bridget
Prentice: It would not necessarily be the case that a
receiving coroner would get large numbers of cases arriving on their
doorstep. The chief coroner would have to direct that, which would be
unusual, because it will build up a problem. However, as I said in the
Committee’s evidence-taking sessions, the jurisdiction of the
sending coroner would pay the receiving jurisdiction any costs that
arise.
Mr.
Garnier: That would encourage sclerosis, because the
sending coroner’s area, to preserve its budget and
save its local authorities money, would build up a backlog rather than
send a case out. It is cheaper to build up a backlog than send a case
from Norfolk to Leicestershire or vice versa. Although I have listened
with great interest to the Minister, nothing that she has said so far
seems to undermine the wisdom of the draft Bill, about which she seems
to have
forgotten.
Bridget
Prentice: I certainly have not forgotten about the draft
Bill or the wisdom therein. The local authority could, for example,
make arrangements for more assistant coroners to be appointed to deal
with a backlog. The new clauses are perfectly reasonable, but I should
like to point out that there are measures in the Bill that would be
helpful as far as treasure is concerned. Obviously, there are
difficulties with the current system. We are working with the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport to amend the Treasure Act 1996
code, and we will consult interested organisations on the
implementation of those reforms. We also want the finders of treasure
to be confident in the system, and will work towards that in the coming
months.
The proposed
duty in new clause 33 on any person who acquires a property that they
have reason to believe is treasure to notify the coroner—it
would have been the case even under the draft Bill—would be
difficult to monitor. Also, coroners could end up being notified of any
object belonging to third parties, meaning that they would be
unnecessarily inundated with notices of all finds if there is a fear
among collectors that they could face criminal prosecution
otherwise.
More
importantly, coroners are required to determine whether further items
of which they are notified are in fact treasure or treasure troves.
Those reporting the find after acquiring the object might simply not
know, or could claim that they do not know, when or where the object
was found. In such cases, the coroner would be required to make a
determination without necessarily having appropriate evidence. By
contrast, under clause 20(2), a coroner remains able to conduct an
investigation concerning an object of which no notification has ever
been given, provided that he has reason to suspect that the object is
treasure or treasure trove and that it is located within his or her
coronial area. Therefore, irrespective whether a find has been reported
by a third party, the coroner could still conduct an investigation into
the object. It can be argued that it is not necessary to regulate the
issue by introducing a statutory
duty. We
are aware of the work that the British Museum has been doing with
regard to eBay and monitoring potential treasure finds. We will be
working with DCMS to find ways of tackling those issues and to educate
people—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—making them aware
of their obligation to report, by working on the Treasure Act 1996
code.
The proposed
duty to deliver objects to a designated person, as directed by the
coroner, is unnecessary. There has never been a case under the current
system where anyone has refused to hand over an item. If such a
situation were to arise, clause 24 in schedule 4, gives the senior
coroner the power to demand the production of any items relevant to the
investigation for examination or testing that are in the custody or
control of the person. Failure to comply with such an order, without
reasonable excuse, would result in a fine not exceeding
£1,000.
Consequently,
the proposed new limitation period for bringing an action under the
proposed sections 8A and 8B, including section 8 of the Treasure Act is
not required in respect of the coroner’s
jurisdiction. I
am therefore interested in the British Museum’s analysis of how
much this would cost—it is about two thirds of what our figures
suggest that the annual cost of a coroner for treasure would be. I
agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not a particularly significant
sum, although he is, kindly, aware of the budgetary difficulties that
we are looking at.
I therefore
ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw these
amendments.
Mr.
Gray: The Minister has directed her remarks mainly to new
clause 33, and those aspects of the Bill. She has largely ignored new
clauses 1 to 7 and the establishment of a coroner’s treasurer.
Leaving aside the question of money, which she has addressed briefly
and which is a fairly marginal matter, what does she have to say of the
allegation that these provisions which were in the draft Bill were
excised from this Bill, not because there is anything wrong with them,
but because of a massive cull which removed as much as it possibly
could in order to get in things that we do not like, such as data
protection and so forth. Is there any proof that civil servants went
through the Bill and cut out the bits they thought they could without
anyone complaining?
Bridget
Prentice: I say categorically that there is no truth
whatsoever that civil servants were cutting out bits of the Bill in
order to put in bits that people are complaining about, or may
otherwise have complained about.
Mr.
Garnier: In the interests of open government, which I know
the Minister is fond of—although following the statement from
the Secretary of State this afternoon, I rather wonder—will the
Minister place in the Library the policy notes that went with the draft
Bill in 2006? We could then see the power of the Government’s
thinking in that year, which recommended the new clauses that my hon.
Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk has so eloquently addressed
the Committee about. Presumably, unless there has been some fundamental
blockage of the ministerial team’s brain cells, the arguments
which were good in 2006 must be good in 2009 and there must be some
other reason—perhaps something along the lines that my hon.
Friend the Member for North Wiltshire suggested, or that the Minister
is about to tell us.
Bridget
Prentice: Sadly, I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman
any other good reason as to why the coroner for treasure is not in the
Bill at this stage. I ask him to have a read of this document, which
sets out the policy reasons behind the decision in 2006. I ask the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, so that I can check that it is not
flawed in any way and so that I may therefore be able to look at it
more sympathetically in the future.
| 
