Clause 20
Coroners and Justice Bill
5:45 pm
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
This is an extremely important clause, and it would be made a great deal more effective by the new clauses that we have tabled. They would, in effect, bring back the proposal to set up a coroner for treasure that was contained in the original draft Bill.
I shall provide some background and history, because it might be of interest to the Committee. The Treasure Act 1996 provided a new definition of finds that must be reported to coroners as treasure, and which are then offered to museums to acquire. This process has turned out to be very successful: before 1996 there were roughly 25 finds a year, but last year there were 804, in 2007 there were about 700, and in 2006 there were 600. In other words, a large number of finds are being reported that were not reported previously.
The new system is working well. For example, in my constituency, a few years ago, some Iron Age gold torcs were found in and around a village called Snettisham. That gave rise to a great deal of local publicity as they were worth a huge amount of money and are now in Norwich museum. That was a major local event that obviously brought a great deal of money to the finder and owner of the land on which the torcs were found. In practice, most reported finds are sent on to the finds liaison officers of the portable antiquities scheme, who liaise with the British Museum, whose staff then write a report.
The coroners hold an inquest into finds wanted by museums. In 2007, I understand, fewer than 300 cases went to an inquest. Often, the inquest is a small paper exercise, and a major inquest will only take place if there is a dispute with the museum. The remaining cases are disclaimed and the objects returned to the owner of the land or the finder. However, the truncated inquest process still takes up time. The find will be valued by the Treasure Valuation Committee, and the money split between the landowner and finder.
There is a need for speed. Finders—the metal detectors—whom we see from time to time in fields around our constituencies, are a dedicated bunch of enthusiasts. However, they are often impetuous; they want their money and there is always a temptation to put their finds on eBay and sell them quickly. Unscrupulous metal detectorists may do that, but we hope that they are few in number. The Treasure Act 1996 code of practice states that the reward should be paid within 12 months. For that to happen, coroners need to hold the inquest within 90 days. The problem is that the target is not being achieved. The picture is erratic: for example, in Leicestershire and Rutland the average time taken to hold an inquest is now 49 weeks; in Warwickshire, it is 40.6 weeks; in Northamptonshire, it is 36 weeks; in Wiltshire, it is 39 weeks; and in Norfolk, it is 24.5 weeks. Unfortunately, among the coroners who are slowest at dealing with treasure cases is the one that covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend. He has two cases outstanding. One has taken three years and 20 weeks, and the other has taken two years and three weeks—both cases are way outside the Treasure Act code.