Changes to The Treasure Act Proposals.

 

The current Treasure Act details can be found in a concise form on our website or in full online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/contents

There are now plans to amend and add bits to the act.

If they concern you, the full 48 page proposal document and the various ways to have your say on the changes are detailed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/revising-the-definition-of-treasure-in-the-treasure-act-1996-and-revising-the-related-codes-of-practice

The main proposals that may affect our members are summed up below and also the associated fuller parts from the 48 page official online document are included with the paragraph reference numbers.

NO LONGER MAINLY FOR OBJECTS ‘OVER 300 YEARS OLD WHEN FOUND’, BUT ITEMS MADE BEFORE 1714. (A minor change in practice.)

86. Our proposal is to change the definition from a sliding date to a static date of pre- 1714. This is the date that the first Hanoverian king, George, came to the throne and so provides a clear historic reference point which avoids the bringing into scope of a high volume of low value finds.

OBJECTS WORTH MORE THAN £10,000 TO BE TREASURE. (not many items are found which are not currently treasure, are worth £10,000+, but a single very desirable coin could then be a treasure item)

89. We propose to designate an additional class of treasure for the purposes of section 1(1)(b) of the Act: objects that meet the age criterion (i.e. are at least 300 years old when found) and have a value of over £10,000. Our aim is that this definition should be flexible enough to capture important objects while excluding finds that are more common and less likely to be acquired by museums.

Change under section 2(1) of the Act - Single gold coins defined as treasure

THIS IS GOLD ROMAN AND SAXON COINS. SO A ROMAN AUREUS, A ROMAN SOLIDUS, A SAXON GOLD THRYSMA, SOLIDUS, SHILLING, OFFA GOLD DINAR, COENWULF GOLD MANCUS, ALL WILL BE TREASURE. THE ‘NORMAL’ HAMMERED GOLD AND STATERS WILL NOT BE, UNLESS, AS NOW THERE ARE 2 OR MORE FOUND TOGETHER.

95. We propose to introduce a new designation for treasure: single gold coins dated between AD43, the beginning of the Roman period, and 1344, the year that Edward III successfully re-introduced English gold coinage. Currently single gold coins do not fall within the definition of treasure. Coins from this period of history are comparatively rare- on average the PAS database records only 10 a year, and this can be seen as an indication of their archaeological cultural and historic importance.
96. Many of these coins would have been of interest to museums, but only 8 of 255 coins from the period AD43 to 1327 have been acquired over the last 20 years, including a very rare Anglo-Saxon gold shilling from Wiltshire which was eventually bought by a museum, and was unrecorded unl that me.
97. We propose to include all gold coins, of whatever origin, within these dates as their rarity is an indication of the lack of gold coins in circulation at that me. The aim of this proposal is to focus the resources of the treasure process on preserving rare and important gold coins for public view, without bringing more common coins within the definition.

Change under section 2(1) of the Act - Inclusion of base metal Roman objects in the definition of treasure

THIS IS FOR 2 ROMAN BRONZE ITEMS FOUND TOGETHER. NOW 2 OR MORE BRONZE AGE OR IRON AGE ITEMS FOUND TOGETHER ARE TREASURE, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE FOR ROMAN AS WELL. E.G. A ROMAN BROOCH FOUND FROM THE SAME DEPOSIT AS ANOTHER ROMAN BROOCH.

98. Currently the Treasure Designation Order 2002 includes objects made of base metal which must be one of at least two base metal objects in the same find of prehistoric date. The designation of an important Roman hoard found in Royston in 2009 as treasure was, for example, based on a small silver statue base found with material which would otherwise not have been protected. We hope to lessen the risk of the preservation of other Roman hoards being dependent on such chance inclusions.
99. We propose to extend the definition of treasure to include an find (other than a coin) which includes base metal, which when found as part of a closed deposit, is one of at least two base metal objects in the same find which are of Roman date. The aim of the proposed addition to the definition is to ensure that important Roman finds are similarly protected for the public.
100. In this context a closed deposit means that the objects are believed to have been intentionally buried together at the same me.

Section 30: Duty to notify Coroner for Treasure of acquisition of certain objects

THIS IS WHERE YOU BUY FROM A MATE OR OFF EBAY, ETC, AN ITEM OF TREASURE. YOU WILL HAVE TO REPORT IT AS TREASURE IN THE SAME WAY AS IF YOU HAD DUG IT UP.

124. When the Treasure Act was implemented in 1997, it was considered that the benefits of declaring a possible treasure find would outweigh any gains that a finder might make from selling an item that was not declared. The finder would receive the market valuation of the declared find as a reward, whereas selling illegally would generally mean that the finder would be forced to accept less than the market price.
125. Since coming into force, the internet and online markets have changed the environment in which the Act operates. Now it is possible for the rare unscrupulous finder to sell undeclared objects (in other words, objects which have not been reported as possible treasure) without being asked to prove a legal provenance to the buyer.
126. We consider that this problem can be addressed by commencing section 30 of the 2009 Act. This would insert section 8A into the text, creating a duty on a person who acquires a find that they reasonably believe to be treasure to report it to the coroner. This section would create a criminal offence of failing to notify the coroner where a possible treasure finds has been acquired and there has been no investigation.
127. We have considered whether commencement of this provision would be burdensome for buyers or sellers. We would expect that generally a buyer would seek confirmation that a possible treasure object had been through the correct process prior to them purchasing it. Where a find has been disclaimed, the finder will have received a release leer, which can be easily referred to in the details of the object online.
128. There are also records for objects that did not fall within the treasure process. In England and Wales objects that have been recorded on the PAS database are easily searchable. The presumption is that if they are recorded the FLO would have considered if they might be treasure and advised the finder accordingly. Again these details could be included in the find details in an online market description, and this may well encourage finders to record articles on PAS.
129. In Northern Ireland, because of the Order that limits archaeological digging, there are considerably less cases per year than in England and Wales, and we consider it should not be difficult for a buyer to confirm that they had either declared the article or that it had not been considered as meeting the definition of treasure.
130. Should we commence section 30 of the 2009 Act, section 30(2) will amend section 10 of the Treasure Act. This would make any person nofying the coroner of a possible treasure find under section 8A eligible for a reward. The aim is that this would act as an additional incentive for buyers to report possible treasure objects.
131. We consider that these amendments are a logical extension of the duty of a finder to report a possible treasure object. They would also prevent the ‘laundering’ of potential treasure finds, as any person acquiring the find who becomes aware that it may meet the definition of treasure would now under the same duty to notify the coroner as a finder.
132. Currently, in seeking to show that an offence has been committed under section 8 of the Treasure Act - because an object of treasure that has not been reported was found after the commencement of the Act or the Order - the burden of proving that the find was made aer the commencement rests with the prosecution. 133. Following commencement of section 30 of the 2009 Act, there will be a presumption under section 30(8), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the find was made in England and Wales after the commencement of the Treasure Act. 134. We will amend Section B of the Codes to reflect this change.

IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET ENOUGH MONEY TO KEEP THE PROCESS OF BUYING TREASURE FINDS AND PAYING FOR FLO’S ETC, THE FOLLOWING ARE ‘INITIAL SUGGESTIONS’ AND NOT PROPOSALS AT THIS STAGE

We are putting forward several initial suggestions as the basis of discussion on the future form of the treasure process. These are:

• ● 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; and
• ● 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.

THAT WOULD BE A LICENCE TO DETECT, WHERE THE LICENCE FEES HELP TO PAY FOR THE TREASURE YOU MAY FIND.

 

Any concerns, please have a look at the web pages detailed at the start.

Dai Devonald

Chairman OBMDC