Re: s.5 Treasure Act 1996; Freedom of Information Request

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sirs,

The following request is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You appear to be the Secretary of State with the greatest interest/involvement in the matters set out below, but should this be incorrect, I would be grateful for this letter to be forwarded to the correct body.

While the following requests are presented in the form of questions, it is not proposed that you should produce new information to answer these questions but rather disclose such information as is available and are relevant. Where a question cannot be answered in full, the best possible response would be appreciated.

A response is customary within 20 working days, for which I would be grateful. This is the appropriate email address to which to reply: -

Treasure Act 1996 makes various provisions regarding the protection of finds of “Treasure” (i.e. antique metallic valuables). You become the owner of such “Treasure” as Secretary of State, for the purpose of ensuring that appropriate finds go to museums rather than private collectors.

However, s.5 of the Act entitles certain “franchisees” to claim as their own property Treasure found on their lands. These franchisees include the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. Since the coming into force of the Act, has any franchisee, including, in particular, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, exercised this power to retain Treasure as a private possession? If so, how often, and in respect of what Treasure?

s.10(8) entitles you to pay a “reward” to the franchisee for Treasure found on its lands. Since the coming into force of the Act, how much has been paid to franchisees, including, in in particular, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, in respect of Treasure found on their lands?

You publish guidance on the Act which is found here: -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...
You say at paragraph 20 of this guidance that: -
The principal bodies that are believed to hold valid treasure trove franchises are the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Corporation of London; the City of Bristol may also hold a treasure trove franchise.
The terminology suggests that it is perhaps uncertain whether such franchises actually exist. Can you explain in what way it is uncertain that these franchises exist?

At paragraph 21, you say that both the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster have confirmed informally that they intend to follow the procedures outlined in your guidance in respect of Treasure finds. Is it the correct that you have no powers to enforce these promises if either Duchy chose not to abide by them? Since the coming into force of the Act, has either Duchy chosen not to abide by these promises?

If, as you say, the Duchies have no intention of exercising the full extent of their powers under s.5 of the Act in any event, would your department support a vote in Parliament to amend s.5 to remove the special powers granted the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster in order to simplify the position for persons affected by the Act? If not, why not?

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Parkin

FOI Mailbox,

Thank you for your email which is now being dealt with by the Freedom of
Information Team at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 
You will receive a response to your information request within 20 working
days of receipt.
  

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

This request has gone unanswered and the period for doing so has lapsed. May I have an estimate as to the time scale within which a response is expected?

Yours faithfully,

Robert Parkin

FOI Mailbox,

Thank you for your email which is now being dealt with by the Freedom of
Information Team at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 
You will receive a response to your information request within 20 working
days of receipt.
  

FOI Mailbox,

 

Dear Mr Parkin,

Thank you for your information request of 25^th January. You asked:

 

Treasure Act 1996 makes various provisions regarding the protection of finds
of “Treasure” (i.e. antique metallic valuables). You become the owner of
such “Treasure” as Secretary of State, for the purpose of ensuring that
appropriate finds go to museums rather than private collectors.

However, s.5 of the Act entitles certain “franchisees” to claim as their own property Treasure found on their
lands. These franchisees include the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of
Cornwall. Since the coming into force of the Act, has any franchisee,
including, in particular, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Ducy of Cornwall,
exercised this power to retain Treasure as a Private Possession?

If so, how often, and in respect of what Treasure?

s.10(8) entitles you to pay a “reward” to the franchisee for Treasure found on its lands. Since the coming into
force of the Act, how much has been paid to franchisees, including, in
particular the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster, in respect of
treasure found in their lands?

You publish guidance on the Act which is found here: 

[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...

You say at paragraph 20 of this guidance that: 

The principal bodies that are believed to hold valid treasure trove franchises are the Duchy of Lancaster, the
Duchy of Cornwall and the Corporation of London; the City of Bristol may
also hold a treasure trove franchise.

The terminology suggests that it is perhaps uncertain whether such franchises actually exist. Can you explain
in what way it is uncertain that these franchises exist?

At paragraph 21, you say that both the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster have confirmed
informally that they intend to follow the procedures outlined in your
guidance in respect of treasure finds.

Is it correct that you have no powers to enforce these promises if either
Duchy chose not to abide by them?

Since the coming into force of the Act, has either Duchy chosen not to abide by
these promises?

If, as you say, the Duchies have no intention of exercising the full extent of thier powers under s.5 of the Act in
any event, would your department support a vote in parliament to amend s.5
to remove the special powers granted to the Duchy of Cornwall and the
Duchy of Lancaster in order to simplify the position for persons affected
by the Act? If not, Why not?

We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Unfortunately we are unable to provide the information you have requested
because your request exceeds the cost limit set out by the Act. Section 12
of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for
information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the
appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This
represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in
determining whether the department holds the information, locating,
retrieving and extracting the information.

We consider your request would be over the statutory limit because in
order to retrieve all the information we might hold within scope of your
request, we would need to search through a large quantity of files, both
electronic and paper.

In order to bring your request within the cost limit, you may wish to
provide a narrower timeframe for the information you are most interested
in. By doing so it might help us to identify a smaller body of information
to search through which would aid us in responding substantively to your
request.

If you would like further information regarding the cost limit and how it
is applied, please refer to the Office of Public Sector Information
website at [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/2004324...

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Freedom of Information Team

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

 

Complaints and comments

As is customary in our replies, I would like to explain that if you are
dissatisfied with any aspect of our response to your request for
information and/or wish to appeal against information being withheld from
you please send full details within two calendar months of the date of
this email to:  [3][email address]

 

You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to
investigate any aspect of your complaint. Please note that the ICO is
likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted
before beginning his investigation

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...
2. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/2004324...
3. mailto:[email address]