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

Debate between Tim Loughton and John Howell

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 Does he not think that that means that the term “treasure” is outdated and that we should take the definitions of the scheme?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.

Health Visitors (England)

Debate between Tim Loughton and John Howell

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton]

Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient, because I will come on to all that. I realise that he wants to put on the record his tribute to health visitors in Eastbourne, as do I—as someone who was born in Eastbourne and had wonderful health visitors, I am sure, albeit 57 years ago now.

The one thing that all these problems, and a lot more problems I have not mentioned, have in common is that they come under the remit of the health visitor, to some extent or other. The health visiting service provides an important safety net for infants and young children—as well as mums and dads—who are at particularly high risk of having their needs missed, as they are not visible in the same way as children who are accessing an early years setting or a school, for example.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Loughton]

Another one? Yes, why not?

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech—

[Tim Loughton]

But hon. Members keep interrupting it!

[John Howell]

I am very pleased to briefly interrupt him my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the health visitors in my constituency. Is it not an important role of theirs to ensure that health inequalities are drummed out of the system?

[Tim Loughton]

That is a serious point; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Health inequalities are still a big problem in this country, and those professionals on the ground, not least health visitors, are the first to come face to face with them and have the practical means, in many cases, to do something about them.

Children’s Social Care

Debate between Tim Loughton and John Howell

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children’s social care in England.

First, let me declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Secondly, let me say how delighted I am that we are actually here to debate this issue—the debate has been delayed twice, so this is our third attempt—and that we have some people here to listen as well. It is wonderful, after the stressful week that we have had, that we have two excellent debates this afternoon on really worthwhile subjects that affect all of our constituents on a daily basis. This is the sort of bread and butter business that this House should be spending more time on, but I fear that we do not spend enough time on it, and that has been a characteristic, over many years, of children’s issues in particular.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. This is a wide-ranging subject, and I am sure that there will be contributions on many aspects from children in care, to safeguarding, early intervention and so on.

I am not overstating the case, having followed this issue in Parliament for now more than 18 years, when I say that children’s social care services are currently approaching crisis point, if they are not already there in certain parts of the country. I am particularly concerned about the disparities and the differential outcomes between different authorities in different parts of the country. That forms the basis of the report “Storing Up Trouble”, which was published last July and produced by the all-party children’s group, of which I am Chair. The Minister very kindly contributed to that report and has spoken to our group in response to it. That followed on from the “No Good Options” report in March 2017, which really flagged up huge differentials in the way that our children are being looked after in the care system and beyond across the country. I thank the National Children’s Bureau and its officers for the immense amount of work that went into that very commendable report.

However, it was not just that report in isolation. I am afraid that, over the past few months, there has been a plethora of reports and many worthy organisations flagging up concerns about the state of children’s social care. Action for Children produced the report, “Revolving Door Part 2: Are we failing children at risk of abuse and neglect?”, which revealed that some 23,000 children needed repeated referrals before receiving statutory support to help them with serious issues such as abuse, neglect and family dysfunction. It found a further 13,500 not getting statutory support despite multiple referrals.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am about the patchy way in which children are brought into the decisions being made about themselves?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. There is certainly differential practice and this is an important issue. In my time in the Department for Education, we were really keen, as subsequent Ministers have been, that children in the care system should be at the heart of the considerations of what is best for them, but they actually have quite a good idea of what is best for them as well, so it is really important that they are brought into the decision-making process.

In my time as Minister, I made sure that every local authority in the country—with the exception of the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, where there were no children in care—had a children in care council, made up of children in the care system speaking directly to directors of children’s services and councillors about their experiences. I am really pleased that the Government have decided not to do away with independent reviewing officers, who are that important link, consulting children face-to-face and feeding into their care plans.