Consultation outcome

Revising the definition of treasure in the Treasure Act 1996 and revising the related Codes of Practice - Government response to public consultation

Updated 4 December 2020

Minister’s Foreword from Caroline Dinenage, Minister of State for Digital and Culture

It is my pleasure to introduce the government’s response to the consultation on the revision of the Treasure Act 1996 and its accompanying Codes of Practice.

The primary aim of the Treasure Act 1996 is to ensure that important and significant finds are offered to museums for public benefit. There is no doubt that it has succeeded in this aim. In its first year of implementation, 79 objects were declared treasure; 20 years later that annual figure stood at 1,267. In that time, over 5,000 objects have been added to museum collections across the country. These objects, from Bronze Age axes, Iron Age cauldrons and Roman coin hoards, to early medieval weapons and medieval jewellery, transform our understanding of the past.

This increase in cases is to be celebrated, but there remains discoveries that are of national and international importance that need greater protection under the definition of treasure. Spectacular finds that we would all want to see preserved in museum collections as part of our collective heritage, have been lost to private ownership. There are still ways for the Treasure Act to be improved so that it can meet its original aim in the new context of the present day.

I also recognise that the increasing numbers of cases has placed a strain on the treasure process and that it is now time to review and reform both these issues.

We wanted to hear your views on the future of the Act and its Codes of Practice. I am pleased that so many of you took the time to share your responses. They have contributed a great deal to our understanding of this important area of heritage protection. We have listened, and this document is the first step to transforming the definition of treasure and the administration of the Act.

As a result of this consultation we will revise the definition of treasure to ensure that the Act can protect the most important discoveries. We will commission research to look at options for achieving this and their implications. This will be published next year and will form the basis of a new definition. This will be the most significant change to treasure since the 1996 Act came into being.

While the majority of people who search for finds do so responsibly, we must make sure that heritage continues to be protected. We will therefore work with museums, archaeologists, finders and landowners to better understand the hobby of searching for archaeological finds and support those that do implement best practice.

And finally we will work with the British Museum, Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales and the Department of Environment and Ulster Museum to reform the administration of the Treasure Act to ensure that it is able to run efficiently and sustainably. This will make sure that the fantastic discoveries made by the public continue to add to museum collections around the country for the benefit of everyone.

Caroline Dinenage, Minister of State for Digital and Culture

Executive summary

This government response to the public consultation on the review of the Treasure Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) and its associated Codes of Practice sets out our intentions to create a better process for ensuring objects of cultural significance, which are found by the public, can be preserved in museums for the benefit of everyone.

The consultation posed 32 questions and we received a total of 1,461 valid responses,^{[footnote 1]} all of which were thoughtful and detailed. All responses have been thoroughly considered, have formed the basis of the decisions laid out in this document, and are the springboard for our planned future work in relation to treasure.

The full details of these decisions can be found in Section 2 of this document, and as a result of this consultation we plan to:

• Do the necessary research to create a new definition of treasure that incorporates cultural significance to ensure that our most important objects are preserved in public collections.

• Update the current Codes of Practice that are made under the 1996 Act to ensure that the whole treasure process is efficient, transparent and fair.

• Work with the British Museum to review the current Memorandum of Understanding between the Museum and the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the service the Museum provides in relation to treasure is sustainable and effective.

• Subject to further discussion with interested parties, implement a statutory instrument to exempt finds that fall under the Church of England’s legal system from the legal process under the 1996 Act.

• Undertake more regular and sustained engagement between DCMS, the British Museum and other interested parties, to improve best practice and to work together to ensure that the 1996 Act continues to deliver its aims.

• Work with the Ministry of Justice, who are responsible for the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’) to commence, when practicable and in accordance with legal advice, specific sections of the 2009 Act.

As well as providing invaluable insight that has assisted in our decision-making so far, this consultation also marks the beginning of a process of much needed further research and engagement with finders, museums, archaeologists and the public. This will take time, as will navigating relevant changes through relevant Parliamentary processes.

1. Introduction to the government response

Background

1. The common law concept of treasure trove – that gold and silver objects, hidden with the intention of retrieval, and which are discovered with no identifiable owner or heir, belong to the Crown – dates back at least to the 12th century. The exemption for “treasures from the earth” found in a church or cemetery is even older, originating in the early medieval period.^{[footnote 2]}

2. From the early 20th century Her Majesty’s Treasury paid a reward to finders who declared treasure finds to the coroner, in accordance with common law. This was introduced to avoid a situation similar to that of the discovery of the Cheapside Hoard in 1912. In that case, no treasure inquest was held, and the hoard was only kept together by the efforts of the dealer to whom it was sold by the finders.

3. The 1996 Act abolished the common law of treasure trove, including the requirement for treasure finds to have been buried with expectation of retrieval. The aim of the 1996 Act is to ensure that important archaeological items are preserved in public collections and it confers on the Secretary of State the power to define treasure and the duty to publish and review a Code of Practice which must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

4. The 1996 Act applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, while Scotland has a separate law of treasure trove. In Northern Ireland, The Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (NI) Order 1995^{[footnote 3]} introduced specific restrictions on the possession and use of detecting devices. There is a separate Code of Practice for Northern Ireland that reflects this difference.

5. The Treasure Registry at the British Museum administers the treasure process on behalf of DCMS, except where a find is being transferred to the British Museum. In that case it is administered by the Cultural Property team at DCMS. In England, finds are reported to the local Finds Liaison Officer, who then liaises with the coroner. In Wales finds are reported to Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales, and in Northern Ireland finds are reported to the Ulster Museum or Department of Communities.

2. Why we consulted

6. The success of the Treasure Act 1996, the Portable Antiquities Scheme (‘PAS’), which became fully operational across England and Wales in 2003, and the growing popularity of metal detecting as a hobby, has meant that treasure cases have increased from just 79 in 1997 to 1,267 in 2017.^{[footnote 4]} This has changed the context in which the 1996 Act operates, and it is becoming difficult to maintain a sustainable, effective and efficient process.

7. Further, over the last 21 years, issues have emerged with current treasure definitions, which means that it is becoming increasingly difficult, within the current legislative framework, to ensure that important archaeological items are preserved for public benefit.

8. The Government therefore decided to consult on proposals to review the definition of treasure, as currently contained in the 1996 Act and the Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/2666), along with the associated Codes of Practice. In addition, the consultation was also used as an opportunity to seek public views on commencing certain inactive sections of the 2009 Act that relate to treasure, as well as more general views on the future of the treasure process.

9. The public consultation was published in February 2019 and formally closed on 30 April 2019. The public were asked to consider and respond to 32 questions.

3. Who responded

10. A wide range of bodies, groups and individuals responded to the consultation, and we are grateful for the time and thought that clearly went into these responses.

11. There were 1,461 valid responses (those where at least one question was answered), of which 1,352 were submitted through the online form, 109 were submitted via email and 4 were received by letter.

12. 1,163 (79.6%) of responses came from individual members of the public, 190 (13%) were responses submitted on behalf of an organisation or interest group, and the remaining 108 (7.4%) declined to give their identity or affiliation. A number of individuals identified that they were members of particular bodies or organisations, these were treated as individual responses not organisational ones.

13. The 190 organisational responses breakdown as follows:

Type of Organisation	Number for respondents	Percentage
Not declared	59	31.1
Metal detecting group	51	26.8
Heritage or archaeology group	36	18.9
Museum	25	13.2
Local Government	6	3.2
Other	6	3.2
Part of Portable Antiquities Scheme	5	2.6
Government Arms-length-body (non-museum)	2	1.1

4. Methodology

14. In order to deal with the large volume of free text responses to our proposals, we used an analytical process th\at involved creating a ‘coding framework’.

15. This is a process that allows us to break down each individual response into meaningful units for analysis by assigning a word or phrase to summarise a section of the text.

16. The process for this was as follows:

• For each question, we initially read a random sample of responses to begin to identify the key opinions and ideas. We then assigned each opinion or idea a number (our ‘codes’) to construct a ‘coding framework’ for each question. For example, we could assign “agreed with proposal” the number 1 and “disagreed with proposal” the number 2.

• We then read all responses to that question and assigned to each response all the relevant codes that applied. If further themes emerged this would be assigned a code and added to the ‘coding framework’.

• This then allowed us to determine the number of responses for each ‘code’. We were therefore able to demonstrate how many respondents agreed or disagreed with a proposal, how many suggested an alternative or indicated a difficulty or disadvantage that would result from the adoption of the proposal. These give a clear overview of the respondent’s views on the proposals and form the basis of the figures in Section 2.

5. The government response

17. Our detailed decisions following this consultation are outlined in Section 2 of this document. They are based on the evidence provided in the public responses and aim to preserve important and significant finds for public collections and create a more efficient and sustainable process.

18. In summary we will:

• Do the necessary research and engagement to create a new definition of treasure that incorporates cultural significance to ensure that our most important objects are preserved in public collections.

• Update the current Codes of Practice that are made under the 1996 Act to ensure that the whole treasure process is efficient, transparent and fair. We will amend the codes to include the changes detailed in the annex in the consultation document, upon which we did not specifically consult. We will also include the changes on which we did consult where appropriate. There are more details on these changes in pages 13 - 27 below.

• Work with the British Museum to review the Memorandum of Understanding between the Museum and the Department to ensure that the service the British Museum provides in relation to treasure is sustainable and effective.

• Implement a statutory instrument to exempt finds that fall under the Church of England’s legal system from the legal process under the 1996 Act, subject to further discussions with interested parties.

• Undertake more regular and sustained engagement between DCMS, the British Museum and other interested parties, to improve best practice and to work together to ensure that the 1996 Act continues to deliver its aims.

• We plan to commence the treasure sections of the 2009 Act. However, as this would require new primary legislation to amend the 2009 Act itself, we view this as a long term aim, one that we will work towards with Ministry of Justice officials.

Other comments

19. We would also like to address some more general themes that emerged.

20. The responses to the consultation made apparent that many aspects of the current treasure process are not widely understood. The law relating to treasure finds is not straightforward. It is however important that everyone is aware of their legal position with regard to treasure as the consequences of breaking the law can be serious. These can range from fines, through the abatement of a reward, and ultimately a prison sentence.

Ownership of treasure finds

21. The responses showed some confusion about the ownership of finds. Treasure belongs to the Crown or any franchisee, subject to any prior rights or interests. Any find that potentially meets the definition of treasure in the 1996 Act does not, therefore, belong to either the finder or the landowner and/or occupier and must be reported to the coroner. Where a coroner has ruled that a find does meet the definition of treasure under the 1996 Act, that find belongs to the Crown. The Secretary of State has the power to disclaim finds, in which case the find can be returned to the finder, with the consent of the landowner.

Reporting treasure

22. A number of respondents have chosen to say that should some of the new proposals be introduced that they would not report treasure cases, or that they believe that this might lead to finders not reporting their finds. We value the input of everyone interested in the 1996 Act with the aim of making the treasure process more effective and efficient. However it remains an offence if a finder fails to notify the coroner of a find as directed under the 1996 Act or sells or attempts to sell a find.

23. Finders should be clear that all potential treasure finds should be reported to the coroner, and this includes finds that would have been treasure under the common law of treasure trove and therefore are not subject to the 300 year rule.

Process for reward

24. The responses showed that there were some misunderstandings related to the rewards process. Once a museum has declared an interest in having a find transferred to it, and the find has been declared treasure by a coroner, the finder and landowner and/or occupier may be eligible for a reward, as determined by the Secretary of State.

25. There is no entitlement to a reward under the 1996 Act but the finder and landowner and/or occupier can waive their claim to a reward. 112 finders did so in 2017 and we would like to express our gratitude to them and the previous finders and landowners and/or occupiers who waived their claims.

26. The Treasure Valuation Committee (‘the TVC’) is responsible for advising the Secretary of State on rewards. They commission provisional valuations from an independent valuer which is shared with all interested parties, the finder, the landowner and/or occupier and the curator. Any interested party can submit evidence including their own valuations to the TVC for consideration. The TVC decide on a valuation, which is equivalent to the hammer price at auction and this is circulated amongst the interested parties.

27. The TVC make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the eligibility for rewards and on abatement of rewards. Rewards can be abated where there is evidence a finder has acted illegally, has trespassed or where there are factors which the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to take into account.^{[footnote 5]}

28. An interested party can ask the TVC to review a valuation and they also have the option to ask for a Secretary of State review. It may be open for interested parties to ask for a judicial review of a Secretary of State decision, however it is strongly advised that anyone contemplating this step takes legal advice.

Museum transfers

29. Some respondents thought, wrongly, that finders sell a treasure find to a museum. We stress that when a find is transferred to a museum it is not a commercial transaction. The finds are transferred from the Crown to the museum. As above, finders do not own a potential find or a find that has been deemed treasure under the 1996 Act, and cannot sell it to anyone.

30. The responses also showed that some people are mistaken about how rewards are funded. Museums who wish to have treasure finds transferred to them provide the funding to cover the costs of any rewards from their own budgets, from trusts and foundations, through public fundraising, and sometimes a mix of all three, especially for higher value amounts.

The Treasure Valuation Committee

31. We noted that some respondents expressed doubt about the independence of the TVC, stating that they believed the TVC deliberately undervalued finds, in the interests of the British Museum, or other institutions. We would like to address and refute these accusations here.

32. Members of the TVC are appointed by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, through a public appointments process. This is a fair and open competition regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments against the requirements of the Cabinet Office's Governance Code. Roles are advertised on the Cabinet Office's public appointments website, as well as being promoted widely amongst key stakeholders to create a strong and diverse field of high quality candidates.

33. A Ministerially approved Advisory Assessment Panel will sift the applications and interview the shortlisted candidates. This interview Panel typically includes a departmental official and an independent member as well as a TVC representative. All candidates are considered on merit and their ability to meet the essential role criteria. Once candidates have been interviewed, a panel report is produced which makes recommendations to Ministers to inform their decision on which candidate to appoint.

34. The TVC has a wide membership, including museum professionals, art market experts and a representative of the detectorist community. It publishes minutes of its proceedings, which are generally attended by a DCMS official, and these are disclosed to interested parties when a reward is recommended.

35. We take very seriously any accusation that the TVC is not independent or that it would deliberately undervalue a treasure find. All interested parties have the opportunity to submit their own valuation, but the TVC is under no obligation to accept that valuation. If an interested party considers that they have been treated unfairly they can ask for the Secretary of State to review the valuation, however it is expected that the party will be able to produce evidence to support their complaint.

Metal detecting

36. The responses showed there was a wide range of opinions on metal-detecting. While the Act does not only apply to finds made by detectorists, in 2017 96% of finds that were declared treasure were discovered through metal-detecting.^{[footnote 6]}

37. A number of responses indicated a blanket disapproval of members of the public using metal-detectors to search for archaeological finds, claiming that it did harm to the archaeological record. On the other hand, many emphasised the value of the hobby, both to themselves and to archaeology more generally. There was also some concern expressed by metal-detecting groups on the effect of the consultation proposals on the hobby of metal detecting.

38. We recognise the contribution the discoveries made by the public can make to our understanding of this country’s past. We are aware of previous important finds, such as the Staffordshire Hoard, which would not have come to light if they had not been discovered by metal-detectorists. Treasure finds enter museum collections across the whole country, allowing the public to engage with important elements of their local heritage. And we appreciate it is a valued and beneficial activity for some, which was clearly expressed in a number of responses.

39. We also know that archaeological objects and sites need to be protected and cared for. We do not intend to ban metal-detecting, as some respondents were worried. However we expect metal-detectorists to take responsibility and proactive steps to ensure they practice their hobby in a way that prioritises the protection of archaeological objects and sites, and observe the legislative and policy restrictions on detecting on areas such as Scheduled Monuments. This expectation is already outlined in the Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice.^{[footnote 7]}

40. Metal-detectorists should follow the best practice as outlined in Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (2017).^{[footnote 8]} We want archaeologists and metal-detectorists to work together, to embed best practice and knowledge of archaeological principles into their activities.

41. We will be looking further at commercial rallies. We want to know how they operate, how they ensure that they work within legislation on treasure and export licensing, and what safeguards they have in place to protect archaeological objects and sites. We are particularly interested in finds which leave the UK, and how these are recorded and regulated.

6. Timeline for changes

42. To implement and determine the exact nature of these changes will take time, and some of them will need to be passed through Parliament.

43. Any new definition of treasure may impact the processes described in the Codes of Practice, so our intention is that all changes will be implemented together.

44. These are proposed timelines only, as the laying of Statutory Instruments is dependent on the availability of Parliamentary time, legal resources and ability to develop policy changes are dependent on DCMS resources.

45. At all stages we will be running continuous engagement with stakeholders, including the British Museum and other interested parties, including archaeologists, detectorists, museums, and community archaeology groups.

Timing	Action
2020	- Research into a new definition of treasure that takes significance into account. - Begin drafting the changes to the Codes of Practice and Statutory Instruments to extend definitions. - Design and implementation of a new MOU between DCMS and the British Museum, and between DCMS and the Church of England. - Start engagement with stakeholders, focused on the new definition of treasure.
2021	- Publish research into a new significance-based definition of treasure - Complete drafting the changes to the Codes of Practice and Statutory Instruments to extend definitions. - Laying of Statutory Instruments in parliament for the new definition of treasure and the updated Codes of Practice. Please note that this has a long estimated time window as it depends on Parliamentary time. - Continued engagement with stakeholders, focused on the future of the treasure process and gaining better understanding of the hobby of searching for archaeological finds and how we can support best practice.
2022	- Implementation of new policies and processes. - Monitoring the roll out and implementation of the new process. - Continued engagement with stakeholders to help monitor the implementation of the changes to the definition of treasure and the Code of Practice.
2023	- Evaluation of the success of the changes to the treasure process - Continued engagement to get feedback on the changes to inform evaluation.

2. Detailed response to the public consultation

1. Introduction

1. In this section we provide our analysis of the responses to each of the 32 questions and detail our consideration and the decisions we will take as a result.

2. From a headline position, there are three key areas we have given particular consideration of:

• We were already aware of geographical disparities in the treasure process, not least as a result of the different legislation that applies in Northern Ireland. There are also more regional and local differences in the nature of finds, and local museums’ collection policy will reflect local history, such as the industrial history of the Midlands or the importance of the Roman city of York. A number of responses provided more details on these elements and on practical effect of these differences and we have considered them thoroughly.

• We recognise that the whole treasure process would greatly benefit from more regular and sustained engagement between DCMS, the British Museum and other interested parties, including archaeologists, detectorists, museums, community archaeology groups. We propose to organise individual discussions and round table meetings with these groups in order to discuss the future of the treasure process. This would include views on the funding of PAS and the treasure process, the commercialisation of treasure and how we can support a wider knowledge of archaeological methods amongst detectorists.

• There is further work that needs to be done to ensure that the 1996 Act and associated Codes of Practice are updated to best reflect their aim within the contemporary context. This includes research on the possible introduction of a definition of significance and what impact this would have on the treasure process and how the treasure process can be more clearly focused on protecting cultural objects and ensuring that they are preserved for public access. We consider that this consultation has provided a solid basis for next steps, and we would like to thank all respondents for taking the time to provide considered and helpful responses to the consultation.

2. Revisions to the Codes of Practice

1. There are two Codes of Practice made under the 1996 Act. Under section 11 of the 1996, the Secretary of State has a duty to keep the codes under review and to revise them when appropriate. Both codes contain information and guidance on the treasure process, but reflect the legislative differences on metal detecting in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

2. The number of treasure finds has increased every year since 2012.^{[footnote 9]} We are aware that as the number of cases has increased, the administrative process that deals with them has been put under additional pressure.

3. The changes proposed in this section of the consultation were therefore aimed at making the treasure process more effective and transparent for the benefit of finders of potential treasure, the museums to which such finds are transferred, and the public.

4. The consultation proposed administrative changes to the Codes of Practice across five areas:

• Procedure when a find has been reported to a coroner and treasure inquests

• Museum expressions of interest

• The valuation of treasure

• Rewards and

• The speed of handling cases

5. We asked respondents to reflect on the potential efficacy and impact of these proposals through 16 specific questions, and also provided an opportunity for respondents to provide suggestions and ideas of their own. The responses we received have provided a great number of helpful ideas, and we would like to explore some of these further before potentially implementing. For example, we would like to look further at establishing a regional presence for the Treasure Registry , where there is a large proportion of finds. We will also be considering if recording valuations on the PAS database would be a practical and useful measure.

6. We will be making a number of changes to the current administrative process, and these are described in our responses to each of the consultation questions below. Changes include introducing new time limits for some steps of the process, reducing the number of times the TVC can review a case, and establishing a mechanism whereby unclaimed rewards can be returned to museums.

7. Many of the responses related more generally to the way in which the British Museum administers the treasure process on behalf of DCMS. Despite the dramatic increase in the number of treasure cases since this arrangement was set up with the British Museum in 2007, this is the first time we have substantively reviewed it. We will therefore thoroughly review and update our Memorandum of Understanding with the British Museum, revising it where appropriate to help ensure that the service they provide is as sustainable and effective as possible. We plan to review the Memorandum of Understanding regularly. We also note that the funding of the treasure process and PAS were raised in responses.This issue is under review and we will seek to respond accordingly through a future government Spending period. Further to this, we will be exploring other new ways of working, including how we can digitise the treasure process and streamline elements of its administration.

2.1 Procedure when a find has been reported to a coroner and treasure inquests

Question 1: Do you agree that introducing a time limit for an expression of interest [by a museum] would help to speed up the treasure process?

There were 805 responses (55.1% of valid responses) to this question.

747 (92.8%) responses agreed that introducing a time limit would speed up the process, compared to 52 (6.5%) who did not.

75 (9.3%) responses raised concerns that imposing a 28-day limit would be too short a time to allow for museums to properly consider a new find, either due to other time-pressures or lack of in-house expertise. 58 (7.2%) of respondents, therefore, recommended increasing any proposed time limit to mitigate this, whereas 17 (2.1%) respondents felt that there should not be any time limit.

5 (0.6%) suggested that the proposed 28-day time limit was too long, and should be reduced.

Government response

We think that introducing a 28-day window for a museum to express an interest in a potential treasure find would improve the efficiency of the treasure process. The 28 days would begin on the day that a museum is told about a find that they may wish to have transferred to it.

It will be made clear that any initial expression of interest would not be binding. It would, however, start the treasure process and encourage museums to consider and plan funding. The Treasure Secretariat at the British Museum will be able to use their discretion to allow museums additional time to submit their expression of interest, if reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

Question 2: What do you think would be the impact of asking the coroner to delay an inquest until an expression of interest is made or the 28-day time limit has expired?

There were 686 responses (47% of valid responses) to this question.

The current process leading to a coroner’s inquest varies regionally. 150 (21.9%) responses said that they felt that there would be no impact arising from asking the coroner to delay an inquest, either until an expression of interest is made by a museum or the 28-day time limit has expired because this is broadly their experience of what already happens, or the proposed time frames are similar to those currently experienced.

243 (35.4%) responses stated that introducing or formalising this process would assist in making the process more efficient, both in terms of the time it takes a finder of potential treasure to go through the process and also in reducing the resources required to process them.

It appears from the responses that there was a degree of misunderstanding of this question, with 155 (22.6%) interpreting the question to mean that this proposal would introduce the possibility of an indefinite delay, which is not what was intended.

There was also some worry among 9 (1.3%) respondents that this time-frame could lead to a reduction in the number of finds entering public collections because finds may be disclaimed, regardless of their significance, before a museum has a chance to submit an interest. A small number of respondents, 6 (0.9%), felt that finds should be declared treasure before they are open to museums to express interest in acquiring them.

Government response

The answers to this question revealed that the proposed changes broadly reflect what is current practice, as many coroners already delay opening a treasure inquest until a museum has expressed an interest in acquiring a find. This proposal is aimed at improving the efficiency of the process. It is not intended to fetter a coroner’s discretion to conduct an inquest.

As proposed in the consultation, we will also amend paragraph 50 of the Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice for England and Wales in regards to disclaimed finds, so that it states that the Treasure Secretariat at the British Museum will be responsible for giving the landowner and/or occupier 28 days notice to object to the return of the find to the finder.

2.2 Museum expressions of interest

Question 3: Do you consider that the requirement for museums to research possible value before expressing an interest would reduce the waste of resources caused to the acquiring museum and to the British Museum, National Museum Northern Ireland and National Museum Wales who administer the treasure process?

There were 729 responses (49.9% of valid responses) to this question.

Overall, 562 (77.1%) respondents felt that this would help introduce efficiencies in the process. This is compared to 132 (18.1%) who thought that such a requirement would have a negative impact on the process, and 8 (1.1%) who thought it would have little to no impact on the process.

A number of key themes and concerns emerged from the responses. Specifically as a sub-group, 14 (61%) of museum respondents (and a further 61 non-museum respondents) said that it would have a low or negative impact on the process, with 18 (75%) of them explicitly raising concerns that museum’s capacity and capability would be a barrier to implementing this.

23 (3.2%) of all respondents suggested that this proposal could be improved if museums were supported by clear guidance on how to tentatively value finds and on sources of information they could use to gather helpful information. 10 (1.4%) said that increasing the time-limit to longer than the proposed 28-days, to express an interest, would also help museums take on this additional research.

21 (2.9%) mentioned that valuing objects is not the role of museums and mentioned the Museum Associations Code of Ethics which states that museums should ‘refuse to place a value on items belonging to the public’.^{[footnote 10]}

Government response

As raised in the responses, we recognise that museums and their staff are not necessarily in a position to estimate final values of treasure finds, either due to lack of expertise or time. Further, given the aims of the 1996 Act to preserve significant finds, we would not want to encourage museums to make acquisitions decisions based solely on value rather than in accordance with their own collections policies and benefit to the public.

While we would not expect museums to undertake professional valuation, we do consider that it would be good practice for a museum to have taken reasonable steps to investigate the approximate value of a find before expressing an interest in it. We will support this by improving digital access to information about past reward values, and produce new guidance for museums on the most appropriate ways to find relevant information. Museums will also be able to contact the Treasure Registry and ask for advice on accessing specialised online market sites, for example.

Question 4: Do you consider that this suggestion is sufficient to reduce the waste of resources or do you think that there are other actions that would increase the efficiency of the process?

There were 644 responses (44.1% of valid responses) to this question. Of these, 308 (47.8%) stated that they agreed that implementing the proposed requirement for museums to research tentative values of finds in advance of their expressions of interest would be sufficient to reduce resources used in the initial stages of the treasure process. This is compared to 86 (13.4%) who disagreed.

The question also asked for views on other actions that respondents thought could increase the efficiency of the treasure process. There was a wide range of responses and ideas for how the process could be made more efficient, and a number of key themes emerged.

The most common measure proposed by 36 respondents (5.6%) was to ensure there was clear guidance available on valuations, with 15 (2.3%) of these responses specifically recommending the creation of an online tool or database to keep track of rewards paid by museums. Other recommendations included training, conferences, links to approved sources of information and a potential role for the National Museums in advising potential acquiring museums on valuations.

26 (4%) responses said that initial valuations prior to expressions of interest should not be carried out by the museum expressing the interest, but by another body or person. Suggestions included using the Treasure Valuation Committee to fulfil this role.

17 (2.6%) of respondents said that a reform of the finder’s reward system would help improve the process. Alternatives to the current reward based on market value included establishing a fixed price reward structure, such as set or capped rewards, set values for the most common finds, or using bullion value.

Other responses, with lower response rates, suggested: more effort to improve the rates of donations to museums; additional funding to increase the resources available within the treasure process; the creation of a dedicated central treasure coroner; reducing the types of finds that are classified as treasure; time-limits on the amount of time finders have the hand over their objects to Find Liaison Officers; and making museums’ expressions of interest binding.

Government response

We welcome the range of suggestions presented to us by respondents, As mentioned above, we have concluded that allowing easier access to information about previous rewards would be a positive step towards making the treasure process more efficient and reducing the time it takes to finalise treasure cases. We endeavour to make this information available on the GOV.UK and PAS websites as soon as possible.

Question 5: What effect would clarifying that the Paragraph 48 - 50 and 39 - 41 (of the Codes) process will apply where a museum withdraws interest at any stage in the treasure process have?

There were 486 responses (33.3% of valid responses) to this question. 272 (56%) responses said this would have a positive impact, leading to greater clarity for all parties involved, saved time, better use of coroner time, formalisation of a practise that already occurs, and quicker return of finds to finders where appropriate.

103 (21.2%) of respondents said that the introduction of this measure would have a negative impact. The greatest concern, raised in 96 (19.8%) responses, was that this would encourage the breaking up of hoards which would be damaging to archaeological knowledge, and inadvertently promote the idea that only finds of the highest financial value were important enough to warrant preservation in public collections and thus unintentionally alter the practical definition of treasure.

22 (4.5%) thought that this would have no discernable impact on the process.

Government response

The responses to this question generally showed that the proposed changes would bring the Code of Practice in line with what is already experienced in many situations. We will amend paragraphs 48 - 50 and 39 - 41 as proposed, to reflect this.

It is for museums to decide their own acquisitions policies and the best use of their resources. However, we recognise that the breaking up of a hoard can mean that archaeological information and evidence is lost. Where there are multiple expressions of interest in acquiring a find that is a hoard, the Codes of Practice will be updated to say that priority will be given to keeping a hoard together. Otherwise the Treasure Registry will be asked to explore if the remaining objects in a hoard can be taken by another museum

2.3 The valuation of treasure

Question 6: What do you think the effect would be of having a 28 day time limit on the submission of evidence and comments?

There were 537 responses (representing 36.8% of valid responses) to this question.

The majority of respondents said that this was a good idea, with 169 (31.5%) saying it would have a positive impact and 174 (32.4%) saying it would help speed the process up. 34 (6.3%) thought introducing a time-limit would have a negative impact.

128 (23.8%) answers said the proposed 28-day time-limit was too short, with 26 (4.8%) raising the possibility that valuations could be incorrect because they were rushed. 19 (3.5%) responses stated that this could put finders and landowners and/or occupiers at a disadvantage as finds are held in the British Museum and there might be insufficient time for their own independent valuer to have access to the find.

Government response

We will introduce a 28-day time-limit for parties to submit their evidence to the TVC. This is to ensure that the TVC can consider all relevant evidence at the earliest opportunity, rather than being obliged to consider a find multiple times. The 28 day time limit will begin from the day that parties have been informed of the provisional valuation of the find. We will also implement a further 28-day time-limit for submission of evidence after interested parties have been told the outcome of the Treasure Valuation Committee’s first view.

We understand that there are some concerns about imposing this time-limit. To address these concerns, we will make provision for this limit to be extended on a case-by-case basis, in cases where the Treasure Registry consider that there is a good reason in the circumstances to allow an extension.

Question 7: What do you think would be the effect of having a general rule that the Treasure Valuation Committee (TVC) will only consider a case twice (this can be increased at their discretion)?

There were 502 responses (34.4% of valid responses) to this question.

237 (47.2%) respondents said that the introduction of this rule would have a good or positive impact, with a further 58 (11.6%) believing this would speed the process up. 12 (2.4%) respondents thought this measure would have no impact.

72 (14.3%) responses said that reducing the number of times finders could submit new valuations and appeal the decision of the TVC would negatively affect perceived fairness to the finder. 9 (1.8%) said that they thought finders would be more inclined to withhold potential treasure.

A number of respondents made alternative recommendations for how this process could be altered. 20 (4%) respondents suggested that the TVC should be able to consider cases more than twice or even indefinitely. There were 17 (3.4%) respondents who thought that there should be a separate, additional, independent panel to verify or challenge valuations.

Government response

The TVC is an advisory Arm’s Length Body who review evidence for the potential value of treasure finds and make recommendations on the value of rewards to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State makes the final decision in relation to any reward that may be payable.

Following analysis of the responses, and looking at the current valuation process, we have concluded that specifying that the TVC may review a case up to two times would make the process more transparent and efficient. We will further emphasise that the TVC will only consider new evidence and information relating to the value of the find when asked to review their valuation.

As proposed, the amount of times a case is reviewed may be increased at the discretion of the TVC for complex cases, where it would be reasonable to do so in the circumstances. The option for an interested party to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, where they are dissatisfied with a reward recommendation made by the TVC, will remain.

Question 8: What do you think the effect of screening lower value finds would be?

There were 560 responses (38.8% of valid responses) to this question,

Of these responses 444 (79.2%) said that some screening of lower value finds would be positive. 162 (28.9%) thought this would speed up the treasure process and 86 (15.3%) believed this measure would save public money. 17 (3%) said that this measure would not have any impact or should stay the same.

62 (11%) responses thought this would be detrimental, suggesting that it would not be to the benefit of finders; 29 (5%) of that group said that it would lead to more work for administrators; 19 (3%) said that finders would stop reporting potential treasure finds 14 (2.5%), with 15 (2.6%) saying that they did not trust that the current processes was equipped to do this.

18 (3.%) responses stated that they believed finds should not be judged in monetary terms, and similarly 8 (1.4%) thought that screening by type of artefact would be better than screening by value.

A small number of respondents suggested other ways of reducing the financial and administrative burden of low value finds on the treasure process and administrators. 14 (2.5%) suggested that very low value items should not be considered treasure and therefore should be removed from the process, 8 (4.3%) thought there should be a database of established values for common or low value finds, and 2 (0.36%) suggested that the cost of valuation could be deducted from the reward.

Government response

A high proportion of respondents thought that screening out low value finds would improve the efficiency of the treasure process.

The specific suggestion that the TVC screens finds is not practical, as it may compromise the transparency of the treasure process, however we will consider if there is scope for screening finds at an earlier stage in the treasure process.

Question 9: Do you think that there are any disadvantages to only allowing six months for bank details to be submitted?

There were 583 responses (39.9% of valid responses) to this question.

The majority 432 (74%) felt that the introduction of a time-limit for recipients of rewards to submit bank details would be a positive change. 51 (8.7%) felt that the proposed 6 month period was too long, compared to 18 (3.1%) who thought that this was too short.

28 (4.8%) respondents said that there should be flexibility to allow for extenuating circumstances, while 16 (3.1%) raised concerns about how those without bank accounts will receive their reward.

4 (0.7%) respondents thought this was a bad idea and 37 (6.3%) did not answer the question or did not know.

Government response

As supported by a majority of responses, we will be imposing a time-limit of 6 months for recipients of rewards to provide bank details to the Treasure Secretariat and DCMS (who administer finds which will be transferred to the British Museum) in order to be paid their reward. The Treasure Secretariat and DCMS will still be able to exercise discretion and may, on a case-by-case basis, extend this time-limit if reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case.

When we introduce this proposal we will write to all outstanding recipients advising them that they will have six months from the date of writing to provide their bank details to the Treasure Secretariat and DCMS.

12 respondents (2%) asked why reward recipients could not be paid by cheque or some other payment method. Payments are made by bank transfer because this is the most cost-effective and secure way of paying rewards to recipients. Where payment in this way would cause significant difficulty the recipient should contact the Treasure Registry for advice.

Question 10: In those circumstances, would it be appropriate for any reward that cannot be paid to the desired recipient because they have not provided bank details to be returned to the acquiring museum?

There were 591 responses (40.5% of valid responses) to this question.

403 (68.2%) said that they believed it would be appropriate for unclaimed rewards to be returned to the museum who provided the funding needed to pay the reward. This is compared to 87 (14.7%) respondents who disagreed with this proposal.

The remaining respondents suggested a range of alternative means for dealing with unclaimed rewards. This included using the money to fund aspects of the treasure process and the Portable Antiquities Scheme (22 (3.7%)), giving the money to charity 16 ((2.7%)), or giving the unclaimed portion of the reward to other recipients (ie. the landowners and/or occupiers or finders) (24 (4.1%)).

Government response

We believe that it does not represent good use of public or charitable money to hold onto unclaimed rewards indefinitely. We want to establish a mechanism to refund any reward that cannot be paid to the desired recipient because they have not provided bank details within the 6 month timeframe, to the acquiring museum.

We understand that the source of museum funding for treasure rewards can be complicated (see above: Section 1, paragraph 22). Therefore, if any external funding has been contributed to the reward amount, museums would be expected to discuss this with their funders, and may potentially be required to return those portions of the funds to their funder. We also expect funders to take the possibility of refund into account and make their grantees aware of their obligations in the case of a refund.

Question 11: Do you see any disadvantages in the suggestion that in circumstances where a landowner and/or occupier cannot be identified, the reward money payable to them would be retained for 12 months and then returned to the museum?

There were 543 responses (37% of valid responses) to this question.

356 (65.6%) responses stated that reward money should be retained for 12 months and then, if unclaimed, returned to the museum. In contrast, 67 (12.3%) responses stated that there would be issues with this approach or did not agree with the suggestion.

11 (2%) responses believed that there should be a longer timeframe within which to identify the landowner and/or occupier.

Government response

Rather than money being held for an indeterminate time, we will establish a mechanism to return the reward money to the acquiring museum after 12 months has elapsed where the landowner and/or occupier cannot be identified. As above, museums should liaise with any external funders in these circumstances.

85 (15.7%) responses expressed concern that this proposal might remove the need for finders to prove that they were detecting legally (i.e. with landowner permission). While it is illegal to metal detect without a landowner and/or occupier’s permission, and Section 39e of the Code for Wales and England and Section 34e of the Northern Ireland Code specifies that the contact details of the landowner and/or the occupier must be recorded on the treasure receipt where they are known to the finder, there may be times where a find is only recognised as treasure some time after it is found, and the finder may not recall the find site. This would be an unusual situation, and finders should understand that the TVC have the power to recommend an abatement of a reward where there are reasonable grounds for believing the finder was trespassing.

Question 12: In those circumstances, would it be appropriate for any reward that cannot be paid to the desired recipient because they cannot be identified to be returned to the acquiring museum?

There were 539 responses (36.9% of valid responses) to this question.

382 (70.9%) responses agreed that the reward should be returned to museums if recipients cannot be identified with 116 (21.5%) disagreeing with this suggestion.

52 (9.6%) responses suggested other recipients for the reward in these circumstances. These included the finder 20 (3.7%), the PAS 18 (3.3%) and charitable organisations 14 (2.6%).

Government response

We note that a majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. Some responses suggested that where a reward was not claimed by a finder within the timeframe it could be dispersed to a charity or used to finance the Portable Antiquities Scheme and/or the treasure process. It does not seem to us appropriate that part of a reward, which often originates either from public money or an external funding source, should be dispersed to other bodies, or that funds intended to support museum acquisitions should be used to finance the Portable Antiquities Scheme and/or the treasure process. Consequently, we only propose to return unclaimed rewards to acquiring museums.

2.4 Rewards

Question 13: Do you consider that the proposed definitions of archaeologist and archaeological excavation or investigation are accurate?

There were 518 responses (35.5% of valid responses) to this question.

While 308 (59.5%) responses agreed with the definitions, 175 (33.8%) did not.

75 (14.5%) suggested that the initial finder who took part in subsequent archaeological excavations should be exempt from the definition of archaeologist. 20 (3.9%) stated that there was not enough provision under these terms for all the different types of people or groups involved in excavations e.g. voluntary groups or off-duty professional archaeologists. 6 (1.2%) responses stated that unpaid and/or unqualified individuals should be excluded from the definition of archaeologist.

Government response

Our intention in providing a definition for archaeologist and archaeological excavation was to clarify further Paragraph 81 of the Code for England and Wales which deals with eligibility for rewards under the 1996 Act. Although most responses were in favour of the proposed definitions, we note there were some concerns expressed that this would still not provide clarity on the circumstances in which members of the public are eligible for a reward.

We want to make it clear that this question was not about changing the eligibility criteria. Our aim is to produce definitions which will provide clear guidance for all parties, especially the TVC who have discretion on this question. We will not be defining archaeologist, but instead propose, taking into account the comments we have received here, making it clear that finders who subsequently take part in the archaeological excavations of their original find remain eligible for a reward. This is best practice, and we want to encourage this.

A number of responses raised the question about whether professional archaeologists who discover a treasure find in their spare time are eligible for a reward. As a member of the public they are eligible; it is for the profession to determine the ethical practices of its workforce and whether professional archaeologists should forego their reward.

Question 14: Do you see any disadvantages in having these definitions in the Code?

There were 514 responses (35.2% of valid responses) to this question.

304 (59.1%) responses believed that there would be no disadvantage to having these definitions added to the Codes of Practice. 184 (35.8%) expressed that there believed there would be some disadvantages. 114 (22.2%) indicated that including these definitions may deter finders from working in an archaeological manner.

Government response

As stated above, we will not be defining “archaeologist” and “archaeological excavation”. Instead we will make it clear under which circumstances a finder is eligible for a reward.

Question 15: Do you think that these times [detailed in explanation of Question 14 of the Consultation document]^{[footnote 11]} would improve the rate at which treasure cases are resolved?

533 (36.5% of valid responses) respondents answered this question.

402 (75.4%) responses stated that these times would improve treasure case resolution speed. 70 (13.1%) indicated that treasure cases would only be resolved faster with improved funding. 67 (12.6%) responses did not think that these times would change the resolution speed.

Government response

We will be implementing the proposed time limits. These are: three months after find reported for curator/ Finds Liaison Officer (FLO) to write initial report for coroner; three months after request from Treasure Secretariat for Coroners to consider holding inquests; and three months after receiving invoice from Treasure Secretariat or DCMS for museums to provide funds for payment of rewards.

We will be looking further into the current funding structures for the treasure process and the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Question 16: Can you see any disadvantages to a requirement for acquiring museums to explain delays in payments?

There were 543 (37.2% of valid responses) responses to this question.

408 (75.1%) responses saw no disadvantages to this proposal. 67 (12.3%) responses suggested that it may pose disadvantages. It was suggested that these might include: a strengthening of the perception that the aim of the 1996 Act is to distribute rewards rather than to preserve important and significant finds for the public; that it might cause delays to the treasure process; and the issue that there is no penalty if museums delayed payment of a reward beyond three months.

52 (9.6%) responses considered that there should be sanctions if a museum did not provide payment for a find within three months, including the find being returned to the finder. 49 (9.0%) stated that there should be no extension to the deadlines. 33 (6.1%) responses stated that museums needed time to raise money. 9 (1.7%) responses suggested part payment by the museum.

Government response

The purpose of the 1996 Act is to preserve important and significant finds for the public. In view of this aim we do not propose to adopt any of the suggestions that there should be financial sanctions imposed on museums or that treasure finds should be disclaimed for the benefit of the finder if museums do not pay rewards within three months.

The reason for this decision is that we recognise that museums may need to source alternative finance in order to have treasure finds transferred to them, and that this can take time. We intend, therefore, to ask museums to keep the Treasure Registrar, the Amgueddfa Cymru/ National Museum of Wales and the Ulster Museum up to date with fundraising efforts, and to provide details of progress and proposed actions if the reward amount has not been paid within three months of the museum being sent an invoice for the reward amount.

3. Revisions to the definition of treasure in the Treasure Act 1996

1. The current definition of treasure in the 1996 Act is based on the definition used in the common law of treasure trove. This dates back to the medieval period and is based on the precious-metal content of the find. The Treasure (Designation) Order 2002^{[footnote 12]} subsequently added to the definition to include prehistoric base-metal hoards. However, there are still cases where the current definition does not capture important finds made by the public.

2. Therefore, in this section of the consultation we proposed a number of new additions to the current definition, which would focus instead on the importance of the finds. We also proposed changes aimed at making the treasure process more efficient, exempting finds that currently fall under both the Church of England’s legal system and the 1996 Act and also introducing a static date which would mean that large amounts of mass produced finds would not have to pass through the treasure process.

Value based and significant based definitions of treasure

3. We included in the consultation a proposal to introduce a value-based definition of treasure, which would include finds which had a projected market value of more than £10,000, whatever their age or material. This proposal was designed to bring finds such as the unique 4th century statue of a dog found in Gloucestershire in 2017 under the 1996 Act. Although it was of outstanding archeological importance, the dog did not fall under the definition of treasure in the 1996 Act because it was made of lead. It was sold in July 2019 for £137,500.

4. It became clear from the responses that although there was support for a definition which was not solely based on the physical material of the find, defining treasure by value would not be a practical or effective way to determine importance.

5. We have decided therefore to look further at the introduction of a definition that can best identify significant artefacts that warrant entry into public collections. This would introduce a new element into the 1996 Act, as it would be based not on the intrinsic age and material of a find, but on its archaeological and historic importance. This would be a change from the historic basis of the 1996 Act, although it would be in line with other UK heritage protection legislation.^{[footnote 13]}

6. We will embark on research to determine options for a definition that takes significance into account, looking at the impact and efficacy of these options, and the practicalities of implementing them. We intend to speak to detectorists, archaeologists, museums, academics, and curators on the options developed.

7. A significance-based definition of treasure would have an impact on other proposals contained in the consultation document. This includes the proposed amendments to the Codes of Practice. Consequently we will likely not proceed with these consequential changes unless we decide not to proceed with a significance-based definition.

8. We intend to proceed with the exemption of finds that also fall under the Church of England legal system, in accordance with previous undertakings^{[footnote 14]} during the passage of the 1996 Act, and will look to discuss this further with interested parties.

9. Changes in the definition of treasure must be implemented by a Statutory Instrument, made under Section 2 of the 1996 Act which confers on the Secretary of State regulation-making powers. We will proceed with this once we are clear what changes to the definition, specifically if we will introduce a significance based definition, we intend to make.

The 300-year rule

10. We included a proposal to introduce a static date of 1714 in order to avoid an influx of mass produced finds into the treasure process. We were aware when proposing this date that it might exclude finds that were of regional importance, for example relating to the industrial history of Wales. As we are researching further into a significance-based definition we will include consideration of the appropriate fixed date in that work.

Exemption for finds that fall under the Church of England legal systems

11. The Church of England has a statutory regime for dealing with moveable articles connected with parish churches and cathedrals and land, including graveyards. The Care of Cathedral Measure 2011 (The Measure) and the Faculty Jurisdiction regulate Cathedrals and churches and graveyards respectively.

12. Before the introduction of the 1996 Act, finds in graves, for example, would not have come under the common law of treasure trove. Under this common law definition of treasure, objects and coins, had to have been placed with an intention to retrieve, which exempted objects found in graves. These objects would have been subject to the Church of England’s own statutory legal system.

13. The definition of treasure in the 1996 Act did not include the requirement for the object to have been placed with an intention to retrieve. Consequently finds could potentially be subject to both the Church of England’s rules and the 1996 Act.

14. We intend to introduce a blanket exemption from the 1996 Act for finds which fall under the Church of England’s legal systems of Canon Law. This will mean that finds that fall under these rules will no longer be subject to two different regimes. This proposal meets the government agreement to exempt such finds, made during the passage of the 1996 Act through Parliament. Prior to implementation, we will look to speak further with interested parties.

15. Section 7 of The Measure directs that finds that would otherwise fall under the 1996 Act must be reported to the Church authorities and the Secretary of State and that any such article must be offered to the British Museum or a registered museum. The principles governing the disposal of objects under the Faculty Jurisdiction state that open sale should only be considered once loan or sale to a museum or art gallery has not been possible^{[footnote 15]}. We consider, therefore, that the Church of England’s legal system adequately protects finds which fall under it.

3.1 The 300-year rule

Question 17: Do you think that changing to a static date is a good idea?

There were 571 (39.1% of valid responses) responses to this question.

369 (64.6%) responses agreed that changing the definition of treasure in the 1996 Act to specify a static date would be beneficial, while 113 (19.8%) did not agree. 34 (6%) responses agreed with a static date, but considered it should be subject to regular review or suggested an alternative date. 23 (4%) responses considered there should be exceptions to the date for certain artefacts.

Government response

Those respondents who supported this proposal believed that it would clarify the treasure process, and focus on non-mass produced articles. Some respondents were concerned that a set date was less flexible than the current moving date, and that post 1714 objects that were of national and local significance might not meet the definition of treasure. As we have mentioned earlier in this document, we are considering the introduction of a definition of treasure that is based on significance and we will be looking at the date issue during this work.

Question 18: Do you think 1714 is an appropriate date?

There were 555 (38% of valid responses) responses to this question.

320 (57.1%) responses agreed that 1714 was an appropriate date to include in any static time limit. 217 (39.1%) responses considered this was not an appropriate date, with 64 (11.5%) suggesting 1700 as an alternative and 50 (9%) responses putting forward other alternative dates including 1650, 1830 and 1945. 31 (5.6%) responses agreed that 1714 was an appropriate date, but also suggested that other dates would also be appropriate, including 1561, 1725 or a date agreed by archaeologists.

Government response

As stated above, we will be looking further at the date issue as part of our work on the definition of treasure by significance.

3.2 Definition of treasure by value

Question 19: What view do you have of the proposed value based definition and what impact would it have?

There were 486 (33.3% of valid responses) responses to this question.

We received a wide range of detailed responses to this question.These could be divided into three key areas (these equal more than 100% as respondents made multiple comments).

The largest proportion of responses, 220 (45.3%), considered that a value based definition would be difficult to administer and could have unforeseen consequences. 33 (6.8%) responses considered that the value based definition would be too subjective, for example market prices fluctuate so two finds of similar importance could either fall or not fall under the definition at different times. 12 (2.5%) responses stated the definition could also be manipulated, a find could be deliberately valued at just under the threshold price, and therefore not fall under the 1996 Act. 30 (6.2%) responses considered that it would be difficult for finders and FLOs to identify potential treasure finds under this definition.

148 (30.5%) responses considered that there should be another basis for the valuation, of these, 131 (27%) responses stated that the alternative basis should be a definition based on the historic and archaeological significance of the find. This was the most frequent individual response.

172 (35.4%) responses stated this would be a positive change but answers included comments on the need for a regular revision of the threshold cost and support for the aim of the change, rather than the specific proposed definition.

Government response

It has become clear, from the responses received, that, although a further revised definition of treasure is both required and desirable to ensure that the 1996 Act meets its aim of preserving important and significant finds, a new definition based on the value of an object would be impractical. We propose to look further into the details and implications of introducing a new definition based on the significance of a find instead. This work will be based on a funded research project, due to report in Spring 2021.

Question 20: Do you think that there is any more appropriate way to ensure that important finds which do not currently fall within the definition of treasure are retained?

There were 449 (30.7% of valid responses) responses to this question.

156 (32.5%) responses to this question made suggestions for working within the current definitions. These included more recognition for donors (where a finder or landowner and/or occupier waives their reward, or donate non-treasure finds to a museum), increased encouragement of loans to museums, and that finders should voluntarily notify relevant museums of non-treasure finds if they chose to sell them. The highest ranking suggestion was 87 (19.4%) responses supporting better education and outreach for metal-detectorists.

153 (33.6%) responses suggested that a definition based on significance should be introduced. Respondents suggested that the Waverley criteria^{[footnote 16]} used for export deferrals of cultural objects, could be used or a rating system could be introduced.

86 (19%) responses supported the introduction of a definition based on value, although this included 49 (10%) who considered that the definition should remain the same. 100 (13.6%) responses suggested changes which would require primary legislation, which is outside the scope of this consultation.

Government response

We will be looking further into the suggestions relating to education and outreach to metal detectorists and ways to encourage increased donations or loans to museums and how to best recognise these generous acts. As outlined above, we are looking further at potentially introducing a significance-based definition.

3.3 Single gold coins defined as treasure

Question 21: What view do you have of the proposed designation for single gold coins and what impact would it have?

There were 529 (36.2% of valid responses) responses to this question.

190 (35.9%) responses agreed with the proposed designation of single gold coins as treasure. 138 (26.1%) responses did not agree with the proposal. 62 (11.7%) responses expressed concern about the resource implications of introducing this definition. 31 (5.9%) responses considered that reporting of gold coins to the Portable Antiquities Scheme should be made mandatory.

53 (10%) responses disagreed with the scope of the definition, and considered that it should be significance-based or that the proposed dates were not wide enough. 35 ( 6.6%) expressed the view that single gold coins were not archaeologically significant and should not be defined as treasure. 11 (2.1%) responses voiced concerns that this definition would prevent finders retaining single gold coins in their own personal collections.

Government response

We appreciate that many detectorists particularly prize a find of a single gold coin, and would be disappointed if these were now to be designated as treasure. However, the aim of the 1996 Act is to preserve important and significant finds for the public, and this aim must take priority over the benefit of an individual.

We note that some responses commented that this proposal would not include important iron age gold coins, and also that it does not take account of regional differences in the importance of coin finds. We will be looking further at this proposal when considering the introduction of a significance-based definition.

Question 22: Would AD43 to 1344 be the most appropriate dates for defining single gold coins as treasure?

There were 484 (33.1% of valid responses) responses to this question.

178 (36.8%) responses agreed with this proposal, including 12 (2.5%) who felt that exceptions should be made for “exceptional coins which fell outside these dates”. 135 (28%) responses disagreed with the dates, and 69 (14.3%) of these offered alternative proposals. These alternative suggestions included the early Commonwealth period (1650s) and the statutory treasure date (currently 300 years). 54 (11.2%) responses suggested that Iron Age coins should be included in the definition.

Government response

We will be looking further at this issue while we consider the introduction of a significance-based definition of treasure.

3.4 Inclusion of base metal Roman objects in the definition of treasure

Question 23: What do you think the impact would be of widening the definition of treasure to include objects any part of which is base metal, which form part of a group of articles of Roman date intentionally buried together?

There were 420 responses (28.75% of valid responses) to this question.

184 (43.8%) responses considered that this proposal would be beneficial to upholding the aim of the 1996 Act. 134 (31.9%) responses expressed concern about the scope of the definition, including the suggestion that all hoards should be reported as treasure, regardless of their content, or that early medieval hoards should also be defined as treasure. 64 (15.2%) responses expressed concern about resourcing this proposal. 42 (10%) disagreed with the proposal and 23 (5.5%) considered that it would lead to a reduction in the reporting of finds. 16 (3.8%) responses suggested further consideration of the proposal, 12 (2.9%) felt hoards should be kept together, while 11 (2.6%) thought the proposal would complicate the treasure process.

Government response

As with the other proposals to change the definition of treasure, we will be looking further at this issue, when considering the introduction of a significance-based definition of treasure.

3.5 Exemption of objects subject to Church of England statutory regimes

Question 24: What do you think the effect would be of limiting objects that fall under the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011 and the Faculty Jurisdiction to one legal system?

There were 236 responses (16.5% of valid responses) to this question.

73 (30.9%) responses agreed that this was a good idea. 49 (20.8%) considered that all finds should come under the 1996 Act, and 18 (7.6%) disagreed with the proposal for no specified reason. 4 (1.7%) considered that the proposal was unfair to other denominations. 2 (0.8%) responses suggested that all finds falling under the Church of England’s legal system should be recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. There was one response that suggested that where the Church of England sells a historic object, they should notify local museums in addition to national museums, and that this should be included in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Church of England and DCMS

Government response

In total 20.8% of responses stated that all finds should be subject to the 1996 Act. We acknowledge this view, however we wish to action previous representations originally made between the General Synod and the Government during the passage of the Treasure Bill in 1996 that the government would, in future, endeavour to introduce an exemption under Clause 2(2) of the Bill to exempt such finds.

We will therefore introduce a Statutory Instrument to exempt finds that fall under the Church of England’s legal system from inclusion in the 1996 Act. We will first look to speak further with interested parties and will discuss the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding with the General Synod. We will ask them to consider notifying national and local museums when church owned objects are sold, and also ask that any finds that fall under the Church of England’s legal system are recorded with the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Question 25: Do you consider that the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011 and the Faculty Jurisdiction are sufficient to protect finds which fall under those systems?

There were 236 responses (16.8% of valid responses) to this question.

147 (62.6%) responses agreed that the Measure and the Faculty Jurisdiction were currently sufficient to protect finds that fall under those schemes. 54 (23%) disagreed that the Measure and Faculty Jurisdiction gave sufficient protection at present.

Government response

We consider that finds which will fall under the Church of England’s treasure legal systems, if the proposed exemption is passed by Parliament, will be adequately protected by that system. In view of that there is no need to consider if further legal protection, to prevent important and significant finds being lost to public access, is necessary.

4. Commencement of measures in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

The consultation contained three proposals relating to the 2009 Act. These were that, working with the Ministry of Justice who are responsible for the 2009 Act, we would commence a number of sections contained within Chapter 4 of the Act:

• Section 29 of the 2009 Act which would give coroners the power not to conduct an inquest into treasure cases;

• Section 30 which would expand the duty to report a potential treasure find to the coroner to anyone who acquired an object that met the definition of treasure; and

• Section 30(2) which would lengthen the time for a prosecution to be brought under the 1996 Act.

When the 2009 Act was passed, it included provision for a dedicated Treasure Coroner, and this post is referred to throughout Chapter 4 of the 2009 Act. This is a role which currently does not exist, and this means that to commence the sections above would require either the creation of such a role or primary legislation to amend the 2009 Act to remove references to the Treasure Coroner. In view of this and with the agreement of the Ministry of Justice, we will not be commencing these sections at the present time, but will look to do so when practicable.

4.1 Exception to duty to investigate

Question 26: What effect do you think giving coroners the power not to conduct an inquest into treasure would have?

There were 449 responses (30.7% of valid responses) to this question.

354 (76.8%) responses stated that the proposal would save time and money or were positive about it. 31 (6.7%) responses were either negative about the proposal or considered that coroners should not be involved in treasure cases at all. 28 (6.1%) responses considered that coroners should have discretion whether or not to hold an inquest.

Government response

As stated above, we do not propose to commence this section at this time.

4.2 Duty to notify Coroner for Treasure of acquisition of certain objects

Question 27: What effect do you think the extension of the duty to report a possible treasure find to a person who acquires a find would have?

There were 449 responses (30.7% of valid responses) to this question.

103 (21.8%) responses believed that this proposal would reduce heritage crime and the sale of finds on the black market. 70 (14.8%) responses were positive with no further observations and 31 (6.6%) were positive with the proviso that it would require education, publicity and resources. 121 (25.5%) responses stated that the proposal was either not enforceable or not practical. 48 (10.2%) responses were negative with no further observations.

Government response

We do not propose to commence the relevant section - section 30 of the 2009 Act at this time.

Question 28: Do you have any other comments on these proposals to commence these elements of the 2009 Act?

There were 376 responses (25.7% of valid responses) to this question.

222 (59%) responses either did not answer the question or stated expressly that they had no comments. 51 (13.6%) responses were negative about the proposals and 40 (10.6%) responses were positive. Concern was also expressed about the practicality of the proposed commenced sections, and the resources to enforce it by 27 (7.2%) responses. This included 4 (1.1%) responses questioning how the legislation could be enforced against foreign detectorists.

Government response

We will not be commencing this section at this time.

4.3 Offences under section 8 or 8A of the Treasure Act 1996: Period for bringing proceedings

Question 29: What effect do you think extending the lengthening of time for bringing proceedings for prosecution would have?

There were 308 responses (21% of valid responses) to this question.

139 (45%) responses stated that this would have a positive effect on the treasure process, in addition, 40 (13%) responses specified it would have a positive effect for a variety of reasons, such as discouraging black market sales of unreported finds. 39 (12.7%) responses stated that this would increase the prosecution rate for proceedings under the 1996 Act. 54 (17.5%) responses considered that extending the time for prosecution would have little or no effect. 33 (10.7%) responses thought that it would have a negative effect, and 27 (8.8%) considered that the proposal would have an adverse effect. 18 (5.8%) responses stated the time period should remain as it is.

Government response

As detailed above we will not be commencing Section 30 (2) of the 2009 Act at the present time. Consequently, Sections 8B and 8C of the 1996 Act will not be commenced and so at the present time there will be no extension in the time allowed for prosecutions, until and unless we commence Section 30(2) in future.

5. The long-term future of the treasure process and its sustainability

1. The last three questions in the consultation asked for general views on the future of the treasure process and for any additional comments on the proposals in the consultation. A number of key themes emerged.

2. Some respondents were worried about the introduction into England and Wales of the restrictions on metal detecting which apply in Northern Ireland or the process in Scotland where all finds belong to the Crown. They felt that this might strain the good relationships between detectorists, Finds Liaison Officers and curators and jeopardise the contribution that metal detecting has made to archaeological knowledge.

3. We also note that the funding of the treasure process and PAS were raised in responses, and we undertake to consider how, if possible, we may be able to increase resources. This issue is under review and we will seek to respond accordingly through a future government spending period.

4. We want to encourage detectorists, archaeologists, landowners and/or occupiers and curators to work together to ensure that the aims of the 1996 Act are met, and that everyone continues to benefit from the remarkable finds that have been made during the 23 years of the 1996 Act’s existence, as well as future finds. We recognise that the whole process would greatly benefit from more regular and sustained engagement between DCMS, the British Museum and other interested parties, including archaeologists, detectorists, museums, community archaeology groups. To do this we intend to organise a series of meetings with these groups so that we can monitor and evaluate the impact of the changes we are proposing here and explore further ideas for improvements.

Question 30: What are your views on these preliminary suggestions on the future form of the treasure process?

The three preliminary suggestions were:

• The introduction of a process similar to that in Scotland, whereby all archaeological objects become the property of the Crown

• Strengthening educational outreach to the full spectrum of the metal detecting community in order to encourage the proactive reporting of finds and adherence to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting and the treasure process

• The introduction of a regulation as in Northern Ireland where archaeological digging of any sort (both by professional archaeologists and others) is only allowed by permit.

There were 493 responses (33.74% of valid responses) to this question.

244 (49%) responses were negative about the three preliminary suggestions. 104 (21.1%) responses expressed concern that these suggestions would jeopardise the benefits of the current treasure process, such as the good relationships between detectorists and finds liaison officers. 21 (4.3%) responses expressed concern that the preliminary suggestions would have a negative impact on community archaeology.

Positive responses to the preliminary suggestions were divided into 136 (27.6%) in favour of increased education, 55 (11.02%) in favour of the Northern Ireland regime, and 52 (10.5%) were in favour of the Scottish treasure trove system. 34 (6.9%) responses stated that an increase in resources for the present system would be a preferred outcome.

22 (4.5%) responses expressed concern that there were no proposals to introduce a licencing system to metal detect, as opposed to 10 (2%) who were concerned that a proposal of this kind would be introduced. 4 (0.8 %) responses suggested that organised rallies should be licensed.

37 (7.5%) responses indicated that there should be further research, consideration and discussion of the proposals.

Government response

As expected, we had a variety of responses to this question. The consultation document made it clear that these were not proposals but suggestions to stimulate debate. We think that speaking further to all groups interested in the treasure process would clarify our understanding of their views. Therefore, we plan to arrange a series of meetings and round tables. We would be considering a number of issues including the commercial exploitation of treasure and the best way to ensure that the 1996 Act meets its aims.

Question 31: Do you consider that there is a different approach to changing the process which would support its long term sustainability?

There were 444 responses (30.39% of valid responses) to this question.

110 (24.8%) stated that an increase in funding for the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the treasure process would make the biggest impact to the long-term sustainability. 63 (14.2%) suggested alternative sources of funding, including a levy on rewards, a permit scheme or that local council match funding for PAS should be replaced by the council providing premises, offices equipment and access to digital services.

57 (12.8%) considered that there should be an increase in education and training for groups involved with the treasure process, and 41 (9.2%) responses indicated that there should be efforts to improve relationships between these groups. 49 (11%) responses were that the system should remain the same.

30 (6.8%) responses indicated that sustainability could be improved by regulating detectorists, and 19 (4.3%) considered that finds and/or acquisitions should be limited. 17 (3.8%) responses suggested licensing or banning commercial rallies.

12 (2.7%) responses considered that there should be consistency across heritage legislation and practice, while 3 (0.7%) suggested that there should be more volunteers involved with the treasure process.

Government response

The future funding of PAS and the treasure process is clearly important to respondents, and we were interested by the suggestions for alternative sources of funding.

The increase in education and training and the improvement of relations between the groups involved with the treasure process are very positive aims, and we would like to hear ideas for how they can be achieved.

The commercialisation of metal-detecting is an issue for respondents, and is one of the matters on which we would value further discussion during future roundtables and engagement events.

Question 32: Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the Code and to the legislation governing the treasure process?

There were 426 (29.16% of valid responses) to this question.

64 (15%) responses suggested alternative ways to improve the process, these included clarification of landowners rights, the licensing of metal detecting clubs, more encouragement to report finds to PAS and tougher penalties for illegal metal detecting.

62 (14.6%) responses expressed concern about the effect of the consultation proposals on metal detecting, with 3 (0.7%) responses expressing how important metal detecting was to them.

35 (8.2%) responses stated that there should be better funding for the treasure process, including museum acquisitions. 31 (7.3%) responses suggested that further engagement and research on these proposals should be carried out, while a further 31 (7.3%) stated the system should stay as it is.

9 (2.1%) responses expressed concern about metal detecting rallies. 3 (0.7%) wanted to reinforce the importance of regional differences. 2 (0.5%) responses said that relationships between parties should be improved, and a further 2 (0.5%) emphasised the importance of a consistent approach to heritage preservation.

Government response

We will consider further the views and suggestions expressed in the responses in conjunction with the changes we plan to the treasure process. We will then discuss them further with interested parties as appropriate.

1. Responses containing one or more answers. ↩

2. The Treasure Bill 1995/6 Research Paper, 7 March 1996. House of Commons. ↩

3. The Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (NI) Order 1995: S.I. 1995/1625 (N.I. 9). ↩

4. Treasure Annual Report 2017 ↩

5. Paragraph 79 of The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (2nd Revision) and Paragraph 63 of the Northern Ireland Code of Practice. ↩

6. Statistical Release for Reported Treasure Finds 2017 & 2018. ↩

7. The Code of Practice, paragraph 79.viii: where in the event of an object or archaeological site being damaged the Secretary of State may determine that any reward payable may be abated, in full or part. ↩

8. Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (2017). ↩

9. Statistical Release for Reported Treasure Finds 2017 &2018 ↩

10. Museum Association Code of Ethics, pg.18. ↩

11. The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (England and Wales) Paragraph 79(vii) and The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (Northern Ireland) Paragraph 68 (vii) ↩

12. These are: three months after find reported for curator/FLO to write initial report for coroner; three months after request from Treasure Secretariat for Coroners to consider holding inquests; and three months after receiving invoice from Treasure Secretariat or DCMS for museums to provide funds for payment of rewards. Paragraph 81 of the consultation Revising the definition of Treasure. ↩

13. S.I. 2002/2666. ↩

14. For example The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 S61(2 of which states that “the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest it possesses. ↩

15. BaronessTrumpington, House of Lords Sitting 26 June 1996 HL Deb 26 June 1996 vol 573 cc926-8. ↩

16. “Sale of Church Treasures” Re St. Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence 2014 Court of Arches Law and Religion UK post 21 April 2014. ↩