On Wednesday 26th May 2004, in a parliamentary debate on the illicit trade in antiquities, Estelle Morris (Arts Minister) again confirmed her support for the Portable Antiquities Scheme. She said
'I have been hugely impressed by that Scheme and I am determined to ensure that it continues. I should point out for the record that the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) has invested £1.5 million to ensure that it survives. It is true that the Heritage Lottery Fund cannot continue to fund it, as that is not in its nature, even for small projects. I accept that if the Scheme is to continue, the DCMS core budget must pick it up. All that I can say is that as an advocate of this sector of the DCMS's responsibilities, I have done whatever I could to ensure that the scheme is included, in big letters, in the (Government's Spending Review) bid. When we know how much money we have been allocated from the Treasury, I will do all that I can to ensure that the Scheme continues. I cannot say anything beyond those assurances. However, any change would not be for a lack of wonderment on my part for the scheme, those who run it or the museums. I have had the opportunity to speak to some metal-detectorists, whose hobby has become far more than that; it has changed their lives. We talk about the importance of such work because it helps us understand where we have come from as a nation and race and where we might be going. It had a great effect on those men and women, who have dug up from the earth things that have helped to inform the rest of civilisation about itself, and I am great advocate of that'.
Estelle Morris with Andrew Richardson (Kent Finds Liaison Officer) and Gill Davies, co-finder of the Hollingbourne Hoard.
The debate was initiated by Richard Allan (MP for Sheffield, Hallam - Liberal Democrat) who said that 'the Portable Antiquities Scheme...has impressed all hon. Members with whom it has come into contact. the all-party parliamentary group on archaeology (APPAG), in particular, has had much contact with the Scheme, and has seen that it provides a tremendously valuable service safeguarding the UK's heritage.
It is important to the metal-detectorists, who are carrying out, in most cases, a legal activity, so long as they are not on scheduled ancient monuments and have the landowner's permission. We want to offer metal-detectorists a legal framework, and encourage them to work with Finds Liaison Officers. That will create a virtuous circle whereby the metal-detectorists become educated in how to perform their activity in an archaeological or heritage-friendly manner, where they feel rewarded. Without the Portable Antiquities Scheme we should be back to square one, and the incentive for metal detectorists positively to engage would be gone. The resource prepared by the Scheme, www.finds.org.uk, is a superb example of what can be done. One of the criticisms made of archaeology is that all kinds of material are dug up, but that nobody can access the output from it; the public are interested in it but have no ability to access it. However, www.finds.org.uk is a wonderful example of how, with quite moderate resources, a huge amount of research material can be made available to the general public. It justifies the effort put into the Scheme. I am sure that the Minister will hear more, particularly from members of the all-party archaeology group, on the subject, as it is part of the Department's comprehensive spending review bid process. However, she should be aware that there is huge political support for the Scheme to be funded for the long term. We are realistic about it being inappropriate to go back to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which funded the start-up costs and which had its arm twisted a little to keep the Scheme going. The fund has made it clear that it will not fund the scheme in the long term, so I think that it is a core activity for DCMS.
Other MP's, of all parties, also voiced their support for the Portable Antiquities Scheme:
Alan Howarth (MP for Newport, East - Labour) said
'I wish to refer to the Portable Antiquities Scheme because the combination of the Treasure Act 1996 and the Portable Antiquities Scheme provides an excellent model. It goes with the grain of human nature because it recognises the enthusiasm of amateur archaeologists and metal-detectorists and their desire to be able to keep the objects that they find. Because it recognises and, to as great an extent as is proper, accommodates their energies and enthusiasms, it is workable in contrast to the absolute and comprehensive prohibitions that other countries in Europe and elsewhere seek to impose. However, its success depends on the services of the Finds Liaison Officers. Without them, I dread to think what will happen in our country. We will revert to a situation in which people wander around finding things and digging things up, and archaeological finds are not recorded. That would be a tragic setback. It would be popular with archaeologists and the wider public, who care very much about archaeology and this part of our heritage, if the Government were able to find the resources to ensure the continuation of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. We always knew that there would be a problem because when we managed to persuade the Heritage Lottery Fund to finance the first phase of the Scheme that we have had in recent years, we knew that in the end it would depend upon a more permanent source of governmental funding. I fear that we shall still be in difficulties if that is left to local authorities on their own, unless it is made a mandatory requirement, which seems improbable. I hope that the Department will be able to find resources for a scheme of grants to allow the Portable Antiquities Scheme to be maintained'.
Tam Dalyell (MP for Linlithgow - Labour) said
'I thank the Minister for her optimistic answer to (my) question on Monday on portable antiquities. There is a review of Treasure Trove in Scotland and it has been recommended that Scotland needs a team of Finds Liaison Officers similar to those in England and Wales. Does the Minister agree that that would be helpful in ensuring the reporting of treasure in Scotland, and that the role could not be satisfactorily undertaken by museum development officers as the Scottish Executive suggested' Does she also agree that that demonstrates what a great success the Portable Antiquities Scheme has been in England and Wales' The Government should ensure its long-term funding, and that funding should be ring-fenced to ensure continued delivery of the project's aims'.
Robert Smith (MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine - Liberal Democrat) said
'my hon. Friend (Richard Allan) praised the Portable Antiquities Scheme. If it is to continue, we need to identify how it will be funded and I hope for positive news from the Minister on the subject. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Tam Dalyell) asked what was happening in Scotland, which is a matter for the Scottish Executive, but it will be interesting to know what contacts there are between the Minister's Department and the Scottish Executive to co-ordinate best practice, and about joined-up government within UK-reserved areas. When something that is seen to be successful is established here, what information is passed on to the Scottish Executive''
Boris Johnson (Henley - Conservative) also voiced his support for the Scheme:
'I salute the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) in (helping) setting up the Portable Antiquities Scheme, under which 150,000 objects, some of them very stunning, have been notified to the public since 1997. The rich earth of this country is constantly bringing forth new treasures...The Illict Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP) and the Portable Antiquities Scheme provide important ways of stopping this haemorrhage (in illicit antiquities) without stopping the legitimate trade in art and antiquities. That is why I hope that the Minister will feel able to give them the support that is shared by everyone in this Room'.