Clause 20

Coroners and Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 5:45 pm on 24 February 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Investigations concerning treasure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 1—Coroner for treasure and assistant coroners for treasure—

‘(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a coroner, to be known as the Coroner for Treasure.

(2) The Chief Coroner may designate one or more assistant coroners to act as Assistant Coroners for Treasure.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in relation to the Coroner for Treasure and Assistant Coroners for Treasure.’.

New clause 2—Investigations in relation to treasure—

‘(1) The Coroner for Treasure must conduct an investigation in relation to an object in respect of which notification is given under section 8(1) or 8A(1) of the Treasure Act 1996 (c. 24) (but this is subject to section [Exception to duty to investigate]).

(2) The Coroner for Treasure may conduct an investigation in relation to an object which he has reason to suspect is treasure and in respect of which notification has not been given under section 8(1) or 8A(1) of that Act (but this is subject to section 38).

(3) The purpose of an investigation in relation to an object under this section is to ascertain—

(a) whether the object is treasure, and

(b) if it is treasure, who found it, where it was found and when it was found.

(4) Senior coroners, area coroners and assistant coroners are to have no functions in relation to objects which are or may be treasure (but this is subject to any provision which may be made by regulations under section [Coroner for treasure and assistant coroners for treasure] which enables an assistant coroner acting as an Assistant Coroner for Treasure to perform functions of the Coroner for Treasure).’.

New clause 3—Inquests in relation to treasure—

‘(1) The Coroner for Treasure may, as part of an investigation in relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure], hold an inquest in relation to the object.

(2) Such an inquest must be held without a jury.’.

New clause 4—Outcome of investigations in relation to treasure

‘(1) After considering the evidence in the case of an investigation in relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure] which is conducted without an inquest, the Coroner for Treasure must make a determination as to the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (where applicable) (3)(b) of that section.

(2) After hearing the evidence in the case of an investigation in relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure] which is conducted with an inquest, the Coroner for Treasure must make a determination as to the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (where applicable) (3)(b) of that section.’.

New clause 5—Exception to duty to investigate

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Coroner for Treasure is conducting, or proposes to conduct, an investigation in relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure], and

(b) if the object were in fact treasure, it would vest in the Crown by virtue of section 4(1)(b) of the Treasure Act 1996 (c. 24).

(2) The Secretary of State may give notice in writing to the Coroner for Treasure that he would not wish the object, if it were in fact treasure, to vest in the Crown.

(3) Such a notice may be given only before the making of a determination under section [Outcome of investigations in relation to treasure].

(4) Where such a notice is given—

(a) it is to be treated as disclaiming any title that the Crown may have to the object,

(b) the object is to be treated as not having vested in the Crown under the Treasure Act 1996,

(c) the Coroner for Treasure may not conduct an investigation in relation to the object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure] or (as the case may be) continue with such an investigation, and

(d) without prejudice to the interests or rights of others, the object may be delivered to any person in accordance with a code of practice published under section 11 of the Treasure Act 1996.’.

New clause 6—Codes of practice under the Treasure Act 1996

‘(1) A code of practice under section 11 of the Treasure Act 1996 may make provision in relation to objects in respect of  which notice is given under section [Exception to duty to investigate](2).

(2) No civil liability on the part of the Coroner for Treasure arises where he delivers any object, or takes any other action, in accordance with a code of practice under section 11 of that Act.’.

New clause 7—Amendments of the Treasure Act 1996

‘The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make amendments to the Treasure Act 1996 in connection with investigations etc.’.

New clause 33—Amendment of Treasure Act 1996

‘After section 8 of the Treasure Act 1996 (c. 24), insert—

“8A Duty to notify coroner of acquisition of certain objects

(1) A person who—

(a) acquires property in an object, and

(b) believes or has reasonable grounds for believing—

(i) that the object is treasure, and

(ii) that notification in respect of the object has not been given under section 8(1) of this subsection, must notify the Coroner for Treasure before the end of the notice period.

(2) The notice period is fourteen days beginning with—

(a) the day after he acquires property in the object; or

(b) if later, the day on which he first believes or has reason to believe—

(i) that the object is treasure; and

(ii) that notification in respect of the object has not been given under section 8(1) or subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Any person who fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence if—

(a) notification in respect of the object has not been given under section 8(1) or subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) there has been no investigation in relation to the object.

(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant maximum;

(b) a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or

(c) both.

(5) In proceedings for an offence under this section, it is a defence for the defendant to show he had, and has continued to have, a reasonable excuse for failing to notify the Coroner for Treasure.

(6) If the office of Coroner for Treasure is vacant, notification under subsection (1) must be given to the Chief Coroner.

(7) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a person has acquired property in an object, section 4 is to be disregarded.

(8) In this section “investigation” means an investigation under section [Investigations in relation to treasure] of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

8B Duty to deliver object to coroner

(1) Where the Coroner for Treasure is conducting, or proposes to conduct, an investigation in relation to an object under section [Investigations in relation to treasure] of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, he may direct a person who has control of the object to deliver the object to a designated person before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day after the direction is given to him.

(2) Any person who fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant maximum;

(b) a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or

(c) both.

(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section, it is a defence for the defendant to show he had, and has continued to have, a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the direction.

(4) For the purposes of this section a person has control of an object if he has possession, or a right to possession, of it; and in determining for those purposes whether a person has a right to possession of an object, section 4 is to be disregarded.

(5) In this section “designated person” means a person designated in a code of practice under section 11.

8C Offences: further provision

(1) Proceedings for an offence under section 8, 8A or 8B may be brought within the period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no such proceedings may be brought by virtue of this subsection more than three years after the commission of the offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the date on which evidence sufficient in his opinion to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and

(b) a certificate stating that matter and purporting to be so signed shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved.

(3) For the purposes of sections 8A and 8B “the relevant maximum” is—

(a) in England and Wales, 51 weeks;

(b) in Northern Ireland, three months.

(4) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of paragraph 48 of Schedule 26 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to three months.”’.

Photo of Henry Bellingham Henry Bellingham Shadow Minister (Justice)

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.

Photo of James Gray James Gray Conservative, North Wiltshire

To be fair to the coroner for Bridgend, my hon. Friend is probably being rather unkind. The coroner has a significant problem on his desk. To mention him as being an offender in this matter seems a little unfair.

Photo of Henry Bellingham Henry Bellingham Shadow Minister (Justice)

I was going to make the point—my hon. Friend has done it for me—that it is not the coroner’s fault. He has been facing huge pressure. That is why we need action. That is why the draft Bill introduced a procedure for setting up a coroner for treasure.

I shall cite some remarks made by the Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), when responding to a debate on coroner reform in February 2006, a debate in which I had the privilege to speak. She said that

“treasure trove is an ancient jurisdiction of coroners. Sometimes, such cases can take two to three years to resolve, because treasure trove is always put at the back of the queue and dealt with locally. That does not make sense. We will make one coroner nationally responsible for treasure trove and get that dealt with effectively.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 613.]

If it was sensible in 2006, why is it not sensible now? What the Government proposed then makes a great deal of sense. There is obviously a need for action, but the draft proposals have been dropped.

Photo of Tim Boswell Tim Boswell Conservative, Daventry

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.

Photo of Henry Bellingham Henry Bellingham Shadow Minister (Justice)

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.

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.

Photo of Jennifer Willott Jennifer Willott Shadow Secretary of State, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 6:00, 24 February 2009

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.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

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.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

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.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

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.

Photo of James Gray James Gray Conservative, North Wiltshire

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?

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

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.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

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.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

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.

Photo of James Gray James Gray Conservative, North Wiltshire

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?

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

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.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

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.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

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.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

Order. Before we go any further, there is nothing to withdraw because these new clauses have not yet been moved. If, and when, we reach them in the  appropriate place in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman may wish to move them formally. We are debating whether clause 20 will stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

My apologies, Mr. Gale. I have forgotten that there were new clauses—I have been concentrating on clause 20.

Photo of Henry Bellingham Henry Bellingham Shadow Minister (Justice) 6:15, 24 February 2009

I can see the Minister’s point about new clause 33, that there may well be a number of technical issues around that. But I am still convinced that it would not be difficult to re-insert the principle of establishing a national coroner for treasure into the Bill. The Minister has said that she will look at the costs. I hope that she will come back to me as a matter of urgency, because it is my intention to press new clause 1 to a vote at the appropriate stage—if we win that, then we will also have to vote on the other 16 new clauses. Maybe the Minister can prevent that from happening and come up with costs that will run in tandem with those that the British Museum have proposed. Then we can all be happy and re-insert the proposals, which are excellent, into the Bill.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

I have noted that the hon. Gentleman wishes to move new clause 1 formally, and that will be conveyed to Mr. Cook, should he be in the chair when the Committee reaches that point in the deliberations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.